Delhi Court August 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.
Mont Blanc Simplo-gmbh Vs. New Delhi Stationery Mart and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(41)PTC555(Del)
S.L. Bhayana, J.1. This application has been moved by the applicant, defendant No. 2 in the CS (OS) No. 1251/07, thereby seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC as being barred by or opposed to law. 2. To support this application, applicant has submitted that, Ms. Gopika Pant has acted in combined role as to constituted attorney pursuant to the power of attorney and as an advocate in same cause which is opposed to law. It is further asserted by the applicants that DSK legal, Law firm appointed by the constituted attorney Ms. Gopika Pant is also a partner of the said law firm and has been acting as advocate of the plaintiff as well and thus performing combined function of advocate as well as the constituted attorney of the suitor which is opposed to the mandate of law, as deposition made by the said constituted attorney on behalf of the non-resident clients is not in conformity with law as it amounts to conflict of duty and interest, and would result in miscarriag...
Geeta and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2009
Reported in: 170(2009)DLT268
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J 1. The present appeal on behalf of the appellants Geeta and Dropti, who are daughter and mother respectively, is directed against the judgment dated 14.09.1993 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby the appellant Dropti has been found guilty of having committed the offence of murder of her son-in-law Madan Lal, punishable under Section 302 IPC and appellant Geeta was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC for having assisted her mother, appellant Dropti and another Ghanshyam (who has been declared to be a proclaimed offender), in the said murder of her husband Madan Lal. They were both convicted primarily on the basis of Exhibit PW10/A which was accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as the true and correct dying declaration made by the deceased Madan Lal. By a separate order dated 27.09.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, the appellants were sentenced to un...
D.M.H.P. Sales Ltd. Vs. New Howrah Transport Company and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2009
Reported in: 162(2009)DLT248
S. Muralidhar, J.1. This is a suit for recovery of possession and damages by way of mesne profits/occupation charges.2. The case of the Plaintiff is that it is a limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and owner of property at 1, old Municipal No. 1616 (front and rear) and new Municipal No. 1704, S.P. Mukherjee Marg, Queens Road, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'). The Plaintiff purchased the suit property from Shri Suresh Chandra Jai Narain Gupta by sale deed dated 22nd July 1975. The suit property was mutated in the name of the Plaintiff in the municipal house tax record in April 1989.3. It is stated that prior to the said purchase by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff as well as M/s P.S. Jain and Sons were tenants in the suit property. In 1971 P.S. Jain and Sons merged with M/s Universal Industries Pvt. Ltd. One R.C. Jain was the Director both in the Plaintiff as well as Universal Industries Pvt. Ltd. It is stated that P.S. Jain and Sons being t...
Texem Engineering Vs. Texcomash Exports
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2009
Reported in: 162(2009)DLT444
S. Muralidhar, J.1. This is an application filed by the Defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ('CPC') seeking rejection of the plaint.2. The suit is for recovery of sum of Rs. 1,00,17,972/- together with future interest at the rate of 25% per annum from the date of the institution of the suit till realization.3. According to the Plaintiff it is a proprietary concern through its sole proprietor Mr. Gurbachan Singh Saluja ('GS Saluja'). The Defendant is a proprietary concern and Mr. Narendra Kumar Rajgarhia is its sole proprietor. The Plaintiff claims to have introduced the Defendant to M/s. Peico Electronics and Electricals Limited ('PEEL') and as a result thereof the Defendant signed a Memorandum of Understanding ('MOU') dated 2nd November 1992 and thereafter an agreement dated 17th November 1992 with PEEL for the purchase of tea for export to Russia. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant had in consideration of the services rendered by the Plaintiff...
Bhanwar Pal Singh Vs. the State, Govt. of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2009
Reported in: 163(2009)DLT170
Sanjay kishan Kaul, J.1. The appellant, Bhanwar Pal Singh, has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of his wife, Shrimati Gayatri Devi, solely on the basis of the last dying declaration.2. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant brought one Har Prasad, co-accused, to his house at P-2/322, Sultan Puri, Delhi and after both the accused had consumed liquor, the appellant also forced his wife to consume liquor. The appellant is alleged to have left the co-accused in the room with his wife and went out and bolted the door from outside. Har Prasad is alleged to have outraged the modesty of the deceased Shrimati Gayatri Devi but on her refusal to have sexual intercourse with him, went out of the room after the door was opened by the appellant. The appellant is alleged to have got enraged and thrashed his wife with a danda whereafter he poured kerosene oil on the deceased and set her on fire. This incident is stated to have occurred on 16.7.1990...
Jaininder JaIn and ors. Vs. Arihant JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(41)PTC492(Del)
V.K. Jain, J.1. These Appeals are directed against the common Order dated 8.4.2009 passed in IA 2552/2004 in CS(OS) No. 155/2004, IA 2551/2004 in CS(OS) No. 156/2004, IA 2550/2004 in CS(OS ) No. 157/2004, whereby the status quo order dated 7.1.97 passed in CS(OS) No. 156/04 was vacated and the appellants were restrained from using the trademark 'Kangaro' for stationery items, till the final disposal of these suits. The brief facts, giving rise to these appeals are as under.2. Late Shri Janki Dass Jain, father of Shri Arihant Jain, Jaininder Jain and Shri Vishwa Jain, who was doing business in the name and style of M/s.Kangaro Industries (Regd.) as its sole proprietor, adopted and started using trademark 'KANGARO'. On 3.3.1963, late Shri Janki Dass Jain and his son Arihant Jain, vide partnership deed dated 3.4.1963, agreed to become partners in M/s.Kangaro Industries (Regd.), with share of Shri Janki Dass Jain at 63 per cent and that of Shri Arihant Jain at 37 per cent. On 1.4.1974, Shr...
Satish Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2009
Reported in: 176(2009)DLT475; (2009)IVLLJ761Del
S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. The workman in this writ petition filed against the management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (the respondent herein) is aggrieved by an order dated 20.02.2009 passed by the Industrial Adjudicator on his application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 praying for wages for the period from 01.12.2002 to 21.08.2005 in terms of industrial award dated 12.03.2001 in ID No. 638/1990 in his favour.2. Ms. Saroj Bidawat is present on behalf of the respondent in response to notice of this writ petition and she says that since the writ petition involves a pure legal question, the Court may hear and decide the present writ petition without counter affidavit.3. I have heard the arguments of learned Counsel for both the parties.4. Briefly stated that the facts of the case relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that he was appointed as ward boy with the respondent w.e.f. 18.09.1984 and his services were terminated w.e.f. 04.07.1986. Aggrieved by...
Romesh Chander Sethi Vs. Inder Mohan Sethi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2009
Reported in: 163(2009)DLT4
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. The plaintiff in the present suit seeks partition of property bearing No. 13-B/4, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi claiming one-half share in the said property.2. The facts succinctly stated are that in the year 1954, Shri Jagat Ram Sethi had purchased the leasehold rights of the aforesaid property, measuring 752.3 sq. metres (868 sq. yards) from the Delhi Improvement Trust (now DDA) by way of a perpetual Lease Deed dated 12th September, 1956, registered as Document No. 3112, Additional Book No. I, Volume 298 with the Sub-Registrar, Delhi on 24th September, 1956. On this plot, Shri Jagat Ram Sethi constructed a two and a half storeyed residential house and continued to hold the same as an owner till the time of his death on 15th April, 1978. He left surviving him Smt. Daya Wati Sethi his widow, Smt. Prem Sahni his daughter (the defendant No. 2), Shri R.C. Sethi his son (the plaintiff herein) and Shri I.M. Sethi his younger son (the defendant No. 1 herein). He also lef...
Vikas Mohan Singhal Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2009
Reported in: 2009(243)ELT507(Del)
Mool Chand Garg, J.Crl.M.A.4665/2005 (delay in refilling)Delay in refilling is condoned and the application is disposed of.Crl.M.C.1815/20051. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 23.10.2003 passed by the ACMM New Delhi dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. for discharge in a criminal complaint case, where he was arrayed as accused No. 2 along with one Tankeshwar Singh Nimbekar. The aforesaid criminal complaint is filed by the respondent/DRI on the following allegations:I. That one Tankeshwar Singh accused No. 1 in the complaint, was apprehended by the Custom Department while he was about to leave New Delhi for Dubai vide Flight No. EK-701 and at that time he was found in possession of foreign currency wrapped in polythene and kept below the soles of his foot. The distinction of the foreign currency recovered has been given as follows:i) Left Foot-Deutsche Mark = 1000x65 - 65,000i...
Shri Mange Ram Garg Vs. Hari Shankar Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2009
Reported in: 162(2009)DLT716
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this application made under Section 86(5) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 read with Order VI Rule 17 CPC the applicant/petitioner has sought to make amendments in the Election Petition. It is stated by the applicant/petitioner that the petitioner had made allegations in para 10 of the election petition about distribution of packets of sweets and food to the voters and to the children of voters on 18th November, 2008 and 22nd November, 2008. In para 19, the dates regarding distribution were mentioned as 18th November, 2008 to 22nd November, 2008. It is submitted that in fact the distribution of sweets and food packets by respondent No. 1 and his election agents had started on 16th November, 2008 and continued up to 22nd November, 2008. Therefore, the petitioner seeks to amend paras No. 10 & 19 of the petition. In para 10 of the petition, he seeks to amend the dates of distribution of sweets and food packets from 16th November, 2008 to 22nd Novembe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »