Delhi Court September 2008 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Neetu Mittal Vs. Kanta Mittal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Delhi72; 152(2008)DLT691; 2008(106)DRJ623
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 4th January, 2006 passed by the learned Additional Senior Judge allowing an appeal of the respondent against order dated 24.5.2005 of Civil Judge dismissing an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC.2. The respondents had filed a suit making petitioner, their son and in-laws of the son as defendants wherein they prayed for permanent injunction. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 was made that the petitioner and other respondents be restrained from forcibly and illegally entering into their house No. B-2/23, Phase-II, Ashok Vihar and from interfering with their peaceful living. The petitioner is wife of Sh. Vikas Mittal son of respondents, Smt. Kanta Mittal and Sh. Ram Kishan Mittal.3. The learned Senior Civil Judge while allowing appeal observed that wife has a right to live in the matrimonial home after marriage but there was no specific definition of matrimonial home. However, matrimonial home was not j...
Ram Chandra Sabharwal and ors. Vs. Satish Chandra Sabharwal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: 154(2008)DLT3
A. K. Sikri, J.1. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein have filed Probate Case No. 29/2006 on the Original Side of this Court. In the said petition, probate is sought on the basis of purported Will dated 4. 6. 1990 allegedly executed by Late Shri Shadi Lal Sabharwal. This Will is in respect of two properties owned by the testator: (a) Quarter Nos. 129-130, Vasdev Nagar, Andha Mughal, Pratap Nagar, Delhi - 110 007; and (b) Shop bearing No. 1A, Qutab Road, Delhi - 110 006, wherein business in the name and style of M/s. Lok Seva Store is carried out. The petitioners (i. e. respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein), also filed an application (IA No. 5548/2006) under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') seeking ad interim injunction. It was alleged in this application that the respondent No. 1 herein is in settled possession of the Qutab Road shop since 1973 and likewise the respondent No. 2 is in settled possession of the residential house at Vasdev Nagar since 19...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Pashupati Tours and Travels
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Del)48; [2008]307ITR224(Delhi); [2009]179TAXMAN255(Delhi)
1. This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order dated January 25, 2007, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in C. O. No. 24/ Del/2007 in IT (SS) A. No. 313/Del/2004 pertaining to the block period April 1, 1990 to November 17, 2000.2. The only issue that arises in this appeal relates to the question of limitation in respect of the assessment order passed pursuant to a search and seizure operation.The Tribunal noted that there is no dispute that as per the relevant panchnama dated December 12, 2000, the search was concluded at 5.45 p.m. on that date.3. Consequently, in view of the provisions of Section 158BE(1) read with Explanation 2 thereto, the assessment was required to be framed within two years from the end of the month in which the last panchnama was drawn i.e., two years from December 31, 2000. The assessment should have been completed on or before December 31, 2002. The assessment order in this case was passed on January 31, 2003. In these circumstances, the Tribuna...
Syndicate Bank Vs. Raj Kumar Tanwar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: 154(2008)DLT230
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Though various grounds have been urged in the Memorandum of Appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant restricts submissions to only one point. Learned Counsel urges that the bar of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was squarely attracted in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and hence urges that in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported : AIR2008SC171 Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari, the suit filed by the respondent ought to have been rejected as being barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.3. The relevant facts on which the bar of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been predicated is that the respondent, who is the landlord, had filed a suit on 31.01.1996, seeking ejectment of the appellant from the tenanted premises stating that the lease having come to an end by efflux of time and even otherwise termi...
In Re: the Companies Act, 1956; in Re: Petition Under Sections 391-394 ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: [2009]147CompCas712(Delhi); [2009]89SCL454(Delhi)
Vipin Sanghi, J.1. This petition under Section 391 -394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as Act) has been filed by the petitioner Nestle India Ltd. to obtain the sanction and approval to the Scheme of Arrangement between the petitioner company and its equity shareholder.2. Nestle India Ltd. the petitioner company is an existing Company within the meaning of the Act having its registered office at M-5A Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110001.3. The object of the Scheme of Arrangement between the Petitioner Company and its shareholders and creditors is to pay off the balance in the Securities Premium Account of the petitioner company to the shareholders, and to disburse as special dividend to the shareholders, a part of the balance in General Reserve Account. It is submitted that the Scheme of Arrangement will give an opportunity to the shareholders to earn superior returns, as compared to those which the petitioner company can earn by investing in short term liquid instrum...
Police Commissioner and ors. Vs. Yash Pal Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT209
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The Police Commissioner of Delhi, the then Assistant Commissioner of Police Shri Bal Kishan, Union of India and Delhi Administration (all appellants before us) were the defendants in the suit for recovery of damages filed by the respondent herein (hereafter referred to as the 'plaintiff'). The plaintiff had claimed damages in the sum of Rs. 5 lacs from the appellants (hereafter referred to as the 'defendants') alleging that the police had used violent force against him in which he was also inflicted with serious injuries whereby his fundamental rights of life, liberty and personal safety as well as right of freedom and expression were violated. The learned Addl. District Judge (ADJ) has decreed the suit in the sum of Rs. 1,12,500/- vide judgment and decree dated 7.9.2002. Subject matter of this appeal is the said judgment and decree.2. In the plaint filed by the plaintiff, he had alleged that on 25.2.1993, the Commissioner of Police had promulgated orders under Section...
Dhanpat Bothra Vs. State of Delhi, Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ581
Sudershan Kumar Misra, J.1. This petitioner has moved this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He prays that FIR No. 81/2008, under Section 406 IPC, registered at Police Station Chandni Chowk, Delhi and the proceedings initiated there from, be quashed. 2. Sh. Hansraj Kochar, who is arrayed as respondent No. 2, is a businessman. He deals in jewellery at Vaidwara, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The petitioner, Mr. Dhanpat Bothra, was working for him. He used to sell Mr. Kochar's diamond jewellery on his behalf. For this, he was paid a commission by Mr. Kochar. Since the nature of business as well as the arrangement between the two required a high degree of trust, the petitioner always remained in touch with and available to Mr. Kochar. However, on the last occasion, after the petitioner was entrusted with jewellery to sell, he failed to contact Mr. Kochar for nearly 20/25 days, and Mr. Kochar was unable to trace him. Consequently, on 6. 6. 2008 on the petitioner's complaint...
St. Stephens Hospital Vs. the Workman Sh. S.K. Adhikari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-2008
Reported in: 153(2008)DLT663
Sudershan Kumar Misra, J.1. The petitioner, St. Stephens Hospital has approached this Court against an order dated 16th May, 2006 passed by the Labour Court-XX (Fast Track), Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi in ID No. 595/2006 (Old No. 550/1998). By that order, the Labour Court set aside the enquiry that was instituted by the Hospital against the respondent/workman on the ground that the Enquiry Officer, who happened to be retired District Judge, had violated the principles of natural justice by not permitting the workman to be represented by one Mr. Hamilton despite a request by the respondent in that behalf. The Labour Court felt that as a result of this refusal, the respondent/workman was denied a proper and fair opportunity to defend himself and for that reason, the enquiry proceedings stood vitiated and deserve to be set aside. As requested by the petitioner in its written statement before the Labour Court, after the enquiry was set aside for the aforesaid reason, the petitioner manag...
Jugveer Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-2008
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT666
Sudershan Kumar Misra, J.1. The petitioner is working as a Junior Engineer (Civil) in MCD. He is aggrieved by an order passed by the Vigilance Department on 21.4.2006. This order came to be passed under Regulation 16 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Services (Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1959. By this order, the Commissioner, MCD has set aside the orders dated 2.9.2005 and 13.2.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner/C.L. Zone. As a result of this, the earlier office order dated 1.8.2003 working out the periods for which the penalties imposed on the petitioner were to run one after the other, i.e., consecutively, was revived. The question before this Court is whether this revival of the order of 1.8.2003 whereby penalties imposed on the petitioner were to run consecutively amounts to an enhancement of the punishment when compared to the orders of 2.9.2005 and 13.2.2006 which had directed the punishments to run concurrently, but were now set aside.2. The petitioner was recruited by the r...
Allied Blenders and Distillers P. Ltd. Vs. Paul P. John and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-2008
Reported in: LC2008(3)371; 2008(38)PTC568(Del)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. By a common order dated 11.7.2008, five applications, three applications filed in CS(OS) No. 383/2007 and two applications filed in CS(OS) No. 1058/2002 have been disposed of resulting in the appellant who was the plaintiff in both suits not being held entitled to any interim injunction against the respondents who were the defendants in the two suits. The result is that the respondents have been permitted to sell whisky under the trade-mark/trade-name 'ORIGINAL CHOICE'. However, the respondents have been directed to maintain accounts in respect of the sales and make the sale available to the Court as and when so directed. 2. CS(OS) No. 1058/2002 was filed somewhere in the middle of the year 2002; action was for an alleged passing off. Appellant's application for registration of the mark 'OFFICERS CHOICE' was pending registration with the Registrar of Trademarks in relation to whisky falling under class 33 of the fourth schedule to the TM Rules. During the penden...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »