Delhi Court July 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.
Upaid Systems Limited Vs. Satyam Computer Services and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2009
Reported in: 164(2009)DLT45
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioner, (hereafter 'Upaid') claims reliefs under Section 78 read with Order XXVI Rule 19 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for appointment of a local commissioner, further to a Letter of Request/ Letters Rogatory from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division (hereafter 'the foreign court'), for recording deposition of witnesses, to written questions, which have been appended to the letter of request, and request for production of certain documents by National Association of Software and Services Company ('NASSCOM').2. Upaid is a British Virgin Islands Corporation. It has filed a civil proceeding before the foreign court, for declaratory judgment alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation, forgery and breach of contract, by the respondents (hereafter 'Satyam'). NASSCOM's testimony is important to Upaid, as it claims that Satyam's (first respondent) membership with NASSCOM, as well as industry cus...
Prabhat Kumar Srivastava Vs. Director of Enforcement
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2009
Reported in: [2009]95SCL292(Delhi)
Anil Kumar, J.1. This order shall dispose of the appellant's appeal under Section 54 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 read with Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 against the order dated 30th September, 2005 in Appeal No. 251 of 1997 dismissing the appeal of the appellant and upholding the Adjudication No. SDE(APK)/III/07/1997 dated 7th May, 1997 passed by Special Director, Enforcement, imposing a penalty of Rs. 5.00 lakh against the appellant for the contravention of provisions of Section 8(1) read with Section 64(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.2. The brief facts for comprehension of disputes are that on 13th February, 1993, the officers of Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, New Delhi, searched the residence of the appellant and seized foreign currencies, US$ 64015, Canadian Dollar 4789, Saudi Riyals 600, Italian Lira 5,00,000 and Indian currency of Rs. 43,800/-.3. On 13th and 14th February, 1993, the statement of the appellant was reco...
Naresh Kumar Mittal Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2009
Reported in: 161(2009)DLT452
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These three writ petitions raise a common question with regard to interpretation of Rule 13 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Security Interest Rules) in the context of the fee applicable for an appeal arising out of an interlocutory application filed in a substantive petition under Section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as =the Securitisation Act). We shall refer to the facts in WP(C) 520/2009 (Naresh Kumar Mittal v. State Bank of India and Ors.).2. Aggrieved by the proceedings taken under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act, the petitioner in WP(C) 520/2009 filed an application under Section 17(1) of the Securitisation Act. That application was numbered as SA 9/2007. The prescribed fee of Rs 1 lakh was paid on that application. Subsequently, two interlocutory applications numbered as IA No. 202/2007 a...
Sunny Packers Vs. Employees' State Insusrance Corporation and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2009
Reported in: 162(2009)DLT91; (2010)ILLJ668Del; (2009)156PLR6
S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. The petitioner M/s Sunny Packers, in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeks setting aside of an order dated 16.02.2006 passed by respondent No. 1 directing the petitioner to deposit the amount as per C-19 dated 20.01.2005 immediately.2. The petitioner at the relevant time was a proprietorship firm. This firm was covered by the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 w.e.f. 01.05.1998. The petitioner firm, vide order dated 06.10.2000 of the Commissioner of Industries, Government of NCT of Delhi, was ordered to close down its unit as it was operating in residential and non-conforming area at RZ-15-A, Narsingh Garden, Khayala, New Delhi-110018. A copy of this order was sent by the Commissioner of Industries to the Chairman, Delhi Vidyut Board also with a request to disconnect the electrical power being used by the petitioner for industrial activity. The petitioner firm allegedly closed down its unit from RZ-15-A, Narsingh G...
State (Delhi Admn.) Vs. Shahid Mian and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2009
Reported in: 166(2010)DLT350
Ajit Bharihoke, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of acquittal dated 08.05.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 94/94 arising out of case FIR No. 429/93, Police Station Nangloi, under Section 302/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.2. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution as disclosed in the charge sheet is that on 04.10.1993 at about 4.29 AM wireless operator of police control room visited Police Station Nangloi and informed that one Mohd. Idrish resident of Budh Bazar, Nangloi has given information on telephone that a murder has been committed in House No. 552, adjacent to House No. 510 of Shahid Parvesh. The information was recorded as DD No. 48B and entrusted to SI Raghbir Singh for verification who immediately left the Police Station. Immediately thereafter, the accused Shahid Mian reached at the Police Station. He was carrying two blood stained churras (knives) and he stated that he has killed hi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. C.B.K.R. Enterprises
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2009
Reported in: [2010]186TAXMAN14(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. CM Appl. No. 3098/2009 in ITA No. 329/2009, CM Appl. No. 3184/2009 in ITA No. 344/2009 & CM Appl. No. 3194/2009 in ITA No. 354/ 2009 (Exemption)Exemptions in these applications are allowed, subject to just exceptions. CMs stand disposed of.CM Appl. No. 8655/2009 in ITA No. 719/2009 and CM Appl. No. 8662/2009 in ITA No. 729/2009 (delay)2. For the reasons stated in these applications, we condone the delay in refilling the appeals.CMs stand disposed of.3. In all these appeals, common question is raised qua the same assessee. For this reason, Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, made consolidated arguments covering all these appeals. The assessee is a partnership firm and is engaged in the business of trading. Main business activities of the assessee is to act a commission agent of M/s. Marico Industries Ltd., who are the manufacturers of Saffola oil edible oil and non-edible oil (i.e., Hair & Care oil). These goods manufactured by M...
Court on Its Own Motion Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-15-2009
Reported in: 163(2009)DLT641
Manmohan , J.1. Today.s children constitute tomorrow.s future. To ensure a bright future of our children, we have to ensure that they are educated and not exploited.2. In fact, children are the most vulnerable members of any society. They are entitled to special care and assistance because of their physical and mental immaturity. The problem is more complicated in developing countries like ours, where child labour exists in relationship with illiteracy and poverty.3. To eliminate the menace of child labour and to effectuate the mandate of Articles 23, 24, 39, 45 and 47 of the Constitution, Supreme Court had given a large number of mandatory directions in M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in : (1997)IILLJ724SC . One of the important directions was to direct an employer to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for having employed a child below the age of 14 years in hazardous work in contravention of Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as CLPR...
Smt. Mayawati Malik Vs. Mcd and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-15-2009
Reported in: 162(2009)DLT94
A.K. Pathak, J.1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order dated 17th April, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') passed in TA No. 715/2009 thereby holding that Petitioner was not entitled to the reliefs as prayed in the petition.2. Brief facts are that the Petitioner had passed two years JBT diploma course from the Lovely Teachers Training Institute, which was duly recognized by Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, in the year 1997. Petitioner also got herself registered with the Employment Exchange for Primary Teacher. On 11th June, 1998 Respondent issued an advertisement inviting applications in the prescribed format for the post of Primary Teachers in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- (revised), exclusively from the candidates, who had passed Elementary Teacher Education (ETE) course from District Institute of Education Training (DIETs) run by State Council of E...
indus Ind Bank Ltd. Vs. Ram Laxman Hotels Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-15-2009
Reported in: 162(2009)DLT332
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The question for consideration is whether, a third party, who was not a party to the arbitration agreement or the arbitration proceedings, can file a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 with respect to an arbitral award on the ground of the same affecting the said third party.2. The petitioner bank is averred to have granted credit facilities etc to the respondent No. 1 company. Upon default by the respondent No. 1 company, the petitioner bank initiated proceedings before the DRT, Mumbai, subsequently transferred to DRT, Pune. The said proceedings are informed to have culminated with an order in favour of the petitioner and Recovery Certificate averred to have been issued against the respondent No. 1 company.3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 company, with a view to delay the recovery proceedings entered into an agreement with respondent No. 2 NRI Lead Bank alleged to be carrying on business in banking services with...
Jay Shankar Singh Vs. Insurance Regulatory Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-15-2009
Reported in: 163(2009)DLT785
ORDERSanjiv Khanna, J.1. The petitioner, Jay Shankar Singh, is owner of a vehicle, which was insured for the period 25th May, 2003 to 24th May, 2004 and then from 25th May, 2004 to 24th May, 2005 with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. Premium for both the policies was paid and accepted.2. On 16th March, 2004, the petitioner lodged a claim with New India Assurance Company Limited on account of an accident, which had taken place on 26th March, 2004. The said claim obviously related to the policy period 23rd May, 2003 to 22nd May, 2004 but was made after policy for the period of 25th May, 2004 to 24th May, 2005 had already been issued. The respondent insurance company, scrutinized the claim, accepted the claim and made payment of Rs. 4,542/- on 19th August, 2004.3. On 22nd December, 2004, the petitioner filed an FIR for theft of the said vehicle. He also made a claim with the respondent insurance company, which was not accepted. The stand taken by the respondent insurance company as is...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »