Delhi Court May 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.
Davender Lal Mehta S/O Late Shri Satyapal Mehta Vs. Sh. Dharmender Meh ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Delhi189; 160(2009)DLT22
V.B. Gupta, J.1. The appellant has filed this appeal against decree and judgment dated 25th September, 2006, passed by Sh. M.K. Gupta, Additional District Judge, Delhi, who vide impugned judgment, dismissed the suit of the appellant.2. The brief facts of this case are that appellant is the father of respondent No. 1 and husband of respondent No. 2. He filed the present suit for permanent injunction on 24th September, 1999, on the allegations that, he is owner in possession of property No. D-135, Anand Vihar, New Delhi and this property has been acquired by him from his previous owner. Respondent No. 2 has been cruel towards him. Sometimes on account of torture committed upon him, he goes and sleeps in the house of his other son, Sh. Bhupinder Mehta at A-144, Anand Vihar, New Delhi, though appellant permanently resides in the property in question and all his goods and belongings are lying there.3. It has been further alleged that respondent No. 1 is not permitting the appellant to enter...
A.J.K. Fernandez Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3379
Mool Chand Garg, J.1. This order shall dispose of the aforesaid Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order directing framing of charges and the charges framed pursuant thereto, against the Petitioner on 17.05.2007 under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 read with Sections 109 and 120B of Indian Penal Code by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi in case RC No. 6(E)/2003/CBI/SPE/EOU.VII, P.S. New Delhi dated 27.10.2003 registered by CBI on the complaint of Shri Anand Kumar, who claims to be the constituted attorney of his son Mukesh Kumar, a resident of Ireland.2. The Charges were framed by the CMM after the charge sheet was filed by the prosecution under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 1.01.2004 after completing the investigation. In the charge sheet, besides the Petitioner, one K. Kadakasham, Deputy Manager of the State Bank of India, Nungambakkam Branch, Che...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Raj Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2009
Reported in: (2010)228CTR(Del)506; [2009]318ITR462(Delhi); [2009]181TAXMAN155(Delhi)
Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the judgment dated 09.03.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 4125/Del/1999 in respect of assessment year 1996-97. The Revenue is aggrieved by virtue of the fact that by the impugned judgment the Tribunal has deleted an addition in the sum of Rs 12,28,517/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 2. At the time of admission of the appeal we had heard the matter extensively. By our order dated 22.04.2009 we admitted the appeal on the substantial question of law set out hereinbelow and had with the consent of counsel appearing for both parties heard the submissions with a view to finally adjudicate upon the same. The substantial question of law on which the appeal was admitted is as follows:Whether trade advances given to the assessee by CEI ...
D.L.F. Universal Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Its Secretar ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2009
Reported in: 159(2009)DLT242
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. Three issues arise in this case: (i) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the conversion of its period lease into a perpetual lease; (ii) If the answer to the first issue is in the affirmative, what is the crucial date for levy of conversion charges; and (iii) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to an increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) upto 250.In our opinion, the Respondents have no objection to the conversion of the period lease into a perpetual lease. The crucial date for levy of conversion charges is the date of application for conversion and a reasonable period upto 3 months thereafter. Finally, the Petitioner is entitled to an increase of FAR to 250.2. The predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioner entered into a period lease of twenty years in respect of Plot No. 1-E, Jhandewalan Estate, New Delhi on 27th January, 1948 with the Delhi Improvement Trust (the predecessor-in-interest of the Delhi Development Authority or the DDA for short). The period lease w...
Rajinder Singh Saluja Vs. Sarbjyot Kaur Saluja and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2009
Reported in: 159(2009)DLT629; (2009)155PLR2
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.FAO (OS) No. 119/2008 & CM APPL. No. 16697/2008 (Condonation of delay in filing Cross Objections along with Cross Objections)1. The dispute is an unfortunate one where the appellant/husband is arrayed on one side and the respondent/wife on the other side whereas the two minor children arrayed as respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The appeal has been filed by the husband aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.01.2008 determining the issue of interim maintenance and facilities to be extended to the respondents for their residence. The respondents have also filed cross objections albeit after a delay of 39 days.2. We may note at the inception that averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay of 39 days filed by the respondents for taking on record the cross objections do not evoke the confidence of the Court. The reason given is that there was a fracture in the left ankle of respondent No. 1 which caused some delay and thereafter some time was taken to draf...
Office of Lokayukta Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2009
Reported in: 160(2009)DLT1
Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J.1. The present appeal arises from the order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 699 of 2009 dated 13th March, 2009. By the order under appeal, the learned single Judge held that the Lokayukta is debarred from calling the records of any matter or case from the Government and its departments prior to issuance of notice to the public functionaries or what has been referred to as the pre-inquiry stage. The Lokayukta was directed that he shall first decide on the question of maintainability of the complaint and in case he decides to proceed with the matter, a formal notice shall be issued.2. The facts necessary to decide the controversy in this case are set out as follows. A complaint was filed in the office of the Lokayukta on 8th October, 2008, under Section 9 of The Delhi Lokayukta and Upalokayukta Act, 1995 ('Act' for short), inter alia, with regard to purchase of Low-Floor buses by the Government of Delhi. On 17th November, 2008, the c...
Hindustan Motors Ltd. Vs. Amardeep Singh Wirk and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Delhi122; 161(2009)DLT88
Neeraj Kishan Kaul, J.1. The issue which arises for our consideration in the present appeal is whether the proceedings before the Consumer Forum should remain stayed and await the decision of the outcome of the proceedings involving similar issues pending before this High Court. The present appeal arises out of the order dated 5th March, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant (original petitioner in the writ petition) claimed a direction to set aside an order dated 6th November, 2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in a complaint preferred by the respondent No. 1 (original respondent in the writ petition). The basis of the writ petition was that substantially similar, if not identical issues are pending trial in this Court in Civil Suit No. 1700 of 2005 (Jatinder Kaur Wirk v. Mitsubishi Motor Corporation and Ors.). The respondent No. 1 claimed to have purchased a Mitsubishi Pajero, manufactured by the appellant. The vehicle met with an accide...
Trans Bharat Aviation (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2009
Reported in: 161(2009)DLT104
V.K. Shali, J.Rule with the consent of the parties.The writ petition is taken up for final disposal.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking mandamus against the respondent No. 1 to debar respondent No. 2 permanently under Rule 39-A(2) of the Air-Craft Rules, 1937 from holding the Pilot licence for violation of statutory Civil Aviation Requirement (hereinafter referred to CAR) dated 01.9.2005 for not giving the employer namely the petitioner, six months notice before leaving its services.2. It may be pertinent herein to mention that the second prayer is with regard to cancellation of appointment of respondent No. 2 as a Pilot with respondent No. 3/Organization is not pressed.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that respondent No. 2 was engaged as a Pilot on retainership basis initially for a period of for one year by the petitioner under an agreement dated 17.6.2004. It was envisaged that this contract may be renewed from time t...
Dvh Industries Vs. Hartley Knits and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-2009
Reported in: 160(2009)DLT118; (2009)155PLR49
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The annals of the litigation are required to be placed in proper perspective. A suit for Mandatory Injunction was filed by the Respondent before us, namely, M/s.Hartley Knits. The Suit was valued at Rupees 5,01,000/- and a Court Fee of Rupees 7,800/- was affixed. However, in the so-called Suit for Mandatory Injunction it has been prayed to the Court to '(a) pass a decree for US$ 1,27,085.50 with interest at the rate of 20 per cent per annum against the Defendants and (b) pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case'. On the very first hearing, the valuation was found to be deficient and the Plaintiff was called upon to make good the deficiency of Court Fee. On this being done, on 4.9.2000 Summons were issued to the Defendants. Defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 entered appearance on 6.11.2000. The Appellant, who was originally arrayed as Defendant No. 2, filed a Written Statement dated 25.9.2002....
Mahesh Gupta Vs. Ranjit Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-2009
Reported in: AIR2010Delhi4; 159(2009)DLT624; 2009(40)PTC510(Del)
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. The present appeal challenges the order dated 16.2.2009 of the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has returned the plaint for presentation to the court of appropriate pecuniary jurisdiction by upholding the preliminary objection as to the non-maintainability of the suit before the court on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction.2. It is worthwhile at this stage to reproduce the relevant para 29 of the plaint which pertains to the valuation of the suit for pecuniary jurisdiction and which runs as under:a) For an order of permanent injunction restraining Defendants; this is valued for Court fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 200/- and the Court fee of Rs. 20/- is affixed thereon.b) For an order of permanent injunction restraining Defendants from passing off, this relief is valued for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 200/- and Court fee of Rs. 20/- is affixed thereon.c) For an order of delivery up, this relief is valued for purpose of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »