Delhi Court February 2009 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. and ors. Vs. Ishwar Chand and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2009
Reported in: 160(2009)DLT505; 2009LC(DEL)48
Mool Chand Garg, J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for quashing/setting aside of the show cause notice issued by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Electricity Courts, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 375/2007 on the ground that the show cause notice is without jurisdiction and contrary to the statutory provisions contained under Section 344 of the Cr.P.C. It has been submitted that a notice under Section 344 can only be issued by the learned Judge only when the judgment of final order has been passed in the proceedings subject matter of issuance of such notice. It is stated that in this case at the time when the aforesaid notice was issued no such judgment much less any final order has been passed and that the instant criminal case is still at the stage of summoning of the evidence and therefore, the show cause notice under Section 344 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. It has been ...
A.L. Mehta Vs. Niit Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2009
Reported in: 160(2009)DLT135
Mool Chand Garg, J.1. By this petition the petitioner seeks interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and prays for quashing Complaint Case No. 2408/2007 and proceedings arising therefrom initiated by respondent No. 1 under Section 499 IPC pending trial in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma, on account of the petitioner having allegedly circulated a letter dated 17.5.2007 addressed to Shri P.K. Misra, Member investigation CBTD in which defamatory allegations were made by the petitioner against the respondent which were also read over and discussed by a number of employees of the first respondent. As such, it was alleged that the petitioner committed an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision petition bearing No. 17/2008 against the summoning order inter alia on the following grounds:(a) Defamatory letter dated 17.05.2007 was in public interest and falls under the exceptions 1, 6,8 & 9 of Section 499 IPC....
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shambhu Mercantile Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2009
Reported in: (2009)224CTR(Del)499; [2009]183TAXMAN251(Delhi)
ORDER1. This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the judgment dt. 29th Feb., 2008 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal') in ITA No. 2056/Del/2006 [reported as ITO v. Shambhu Mercantile Ltd. (2008) 116 TTJ (Del) 784 : (2008) 9 DTR (Del) 617-Ed.] pertaining to asst. yr. 2004-05. The only issue which arose for consideration was whether the capital loss incurred by the assessee on redemption of units of mutual funds was liable for disallowance in view of the provisions of Section 94(7) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').1.1 In order to appreciate the issue which had arisen before the authorities below the following brief facts are required to be noted.2. The assessee, which is a public limited company, is engaged in the business of sale/purchase and trade in stock/units and units of mutual fund. During the relevant assessment year the assessee purchased units of mutual funds which included funds such as Tata ...
Renaissance Hotel Holdings, Inc. Vs. B. Vihaya Sai and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2009
Reported in: 157(2009)DLT265
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The plaintiff, hospitality company incorporated and situated in USA has filed a suit against the two defendants namely defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 is a hotel and defendant No. 1 is stated to be Managing Director of the hotel and both of them are residents/situated at Bangalore. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction against defendants and their Directors, Agents, etc. restraining them from using trade mark 'Sai Renaissance' or any other trade mark incorporating word 'Renaissance' or deceptively similar to the trade mark of the plaintiff either for their hotels or for the hotel related articles and restraining the defendants from using the trade mark on the Internet as a domain name www.sairenaissance.com. A prayer is also made for giving directions for destruction of printed materials or other materials containing trade mark similar to 'Renaissance' and for damages of Rs. 25 lakh.2. The plaintiff's Coun...
Sh. Om Prakash Vs. Chaman Industries and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2009
Reported in: 159(2009)DLT400
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. This is an application moved by the defendants No. 1,3 and 4 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 05.11.1999.2. A suit for the recovery of Rs. 34,16,552.35 (Rupees Thirty Four Lacs Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Two and Paise Thirty Five only) was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants 1 to 4. The defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm, of which the defendants No. 2 to 4 were partners.3. Summons of the suit were sought to be served on the defendants. All the four defendants were reported to be served on 19th March, 1998, though vakalatnama was filed only on behalf of the defendant No. 2. Written statement was not filed by any of the defendants. On 02.09.1998, the defendants were proceeded ex parte in default of appearance and the case was set down for ex parte evidence.4. A learned Single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal) on 5th November, 1999 held the plaintiff entitled to the decree prayed for by t...
Satish Kumar Vs. C.B.i.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ2716
Aruna Suresh, J.1. Under challenge in this appeal is the judgment of conviction and order on sentence of the Special Judge dated 12.02.2004 and 13.02.2004 respectively whereby the appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 7 of the Act and was further sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 13(2) of the Act. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. Appellant was posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Station Nand Nagri in March, 1998. Appellant had arrested Rajesh Kumar in some case registered at Police Statio...
Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Vinay Kumar Sood and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2009
Reported in: 157(2009)DLT368
Aruna Suresh, J. 1. Respondent Vinay Kumar Sood filed a complaint against the petitioner, Standard Chartered Bank as well as four others being its employees before the Metropolitan Magistrate alleging that the petitioner Bank had been repeatedly corresponding with him and demanding a sum of Rs. 3,62,373.01, being the outstanding balance amount in his credit account which he never had with the petitioner bank. During the course of correspondence petitioner sent a telegram dated 17.9.2002; contents therein were allegedly defamatory in nature. One of the official of the bank i.e. Mr. Jishant Narang (accused No. 4) had telephoned his wife on 21.9.2002 intimating her that the complainant had an account with the petitioner bank (accused No. 1) in which there were no outstanding dues to be claimed from the petitioner and the bank's letters if any be ignored. On receipt of this telephone call wife of the complainant made an inquiry from friends and employees in the office of the complainant. T...
S.S. Gokul Krishnan and ors. Vs. State Thr. Food Inspector Govt. of N. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1386
Aruna Suresh, J.1. By way of this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) the petitioner has sought quashing of complaint case No. 232/2006 titled Food Inspector (PFA) v. Ashok Chhabra and Ors. and order of the trial court dated 06.10.2006 summoning the petitioners herein and all the proceedings emanating from the aforesaid complaint.2. On 24.09.2005 at 4.00 p.m., Food Inspector Arun Kumar purchased a sample of 'processed cheese' for analysis from Sh. Ashok Chhabra, son of Sh. B.R. Chhabra of M/s. New Cake Palace, 36, J Block Market, Saket (vendor) where the said food article was stored for sale. Sample consisting of three sealed tin packs of 400 gms. each bearing identical declaration, was taken under the supervision and direction of Sh. Manish Garg, SDM/LHA. Vendor disclosed that the sample article was supplied through M/s. NGS Commerce vide bill No. 1677 dated 22.09.2005 and accordingly a notice was also sent to the supplier by r...
Dr. Dillip Kumar Parida Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2009
Reported in: 157(2009)DLT191
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This judgment will dispose of a review petition, filed by the appellant writ petitioner. It is directed against a judgment and order, dated 6-2-2006, dismissing an appeal, preferred against the judgment of a learned single judge. The single judge had negatived the petitioners-challenge to his non-selection, and the selection and appointment of the fifth respondent, in WP 4107/2003.2. The petitioner, as well as the fifth respondent, were candidates for selection to the post of Assistant Professor, Radiotherapy, All India Institute of Medical Sciences ('AIIMS'). Interviews were held for the purpose, on 1-4- 2003; of the 35 called to attend the interview, 30 turned up. There is no dispute that of the nine members of the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose, only six attended the process and held interview. Three experts participated; two of them were external experts, (i.e Dr. D.P. Agarwal, HOD Radiptherapy, Sawai Mansingh Medical College, Jaipur, and Pro...
Parminder Jeet Singh and anr. Vs. Kuljit Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2009
Reported in: 157(2009)DLT335
Aruna Suresh, J.1. In December 2000 Gurbachan Singh, since deceased who happened to be the husband of petitioner No. 2 and father of petitioner No. 1 made a request to the respondent for a friendly loan of Rs. 4 lacs as he was going through some bad phase and needed some money for his business. Respondent advanced loan of Rs. 4 lacs in two installments in December, 2000. Gurbachan Singh issued three post- dated cheques bearing No. 685442 dated 5.1.2004 for Rs. 1,00,000/-, 685443 dated 5.1.2004 for Rs. 1,00,000/- and 685444 dated 15.1.2004 for Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on Federal Bank Limited, Civil Line, Agra, in favour of respondent as an assurance for repayment of the loan. Gurbachan Singh expired on 15.1.2001. After his death respondent approached the petitioners in January, 2004 and asked them to repay the friendly loan of Rs. 4 lacs. The cheques were not presented for encashment on the request of the petitioners as they were not having sufficient funds. Thereafter respondent continued ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »