Delhi Court October 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 1 of about 99 results (0.021 seconds)Anita Aggarwal Vs. Kharanand and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? ORDERBy this review application the applicant has sought review of the order dated 6th April, 2010 of this Court on the ground that during course of hearing this Court was of the view that issue of limitation involves a mix question of law and facts and the same could be kept open, to be decided by the trial Court along with other issues after recording evidence of the parties and in view of this expression of opinion by this Court, the Counsel for the petitioner did not address arguments on the facts and merits of the case However, vide order dated 6th April, 2010 the petition was dismissed on merits and the order of the trial Court was upheld. It is therefore prayed that the order be reviewed.2. This petition was listed for the first time before the Court on 15th February, 2010 and the Court asked the Counsel to argue on th...
Tag this Judgment!Chaturanan Industries Ltd and anr Vs Kamdhenu Enterprises Ltd
Court: Delhi
O R D E R (ORAL)1. This first motion under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act, for short) for sanction of the scheme of arrangement enclosed as Annexure A-6 has been filed by Chaturanan Industries Limited and Neon Properties Private Limited (the transferor company Nos. 1 and 2 respectively) and Kamdhenu Enterprises Limited (the transferee company).2. Along with the application, the three companies have enclosed copy of the Resolutions passed by the Board of Directors approving the scheme of arrangement as propounded in Annexure A-6. Along with the application, the two transferor companies and the transferee company have filed their audit report and profit and loss accounts for the year ending 31st March, 2010. The application is duly supported by affidavits in support of the averments made therein.3. The transferor company No. 1 and the transferee company are public limited listed companies and meeting of their shareholders are required to be held. The transferor comp...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Naeem @ ChuhA. Vs. State (Nct) of Delhi ...
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? ORDER1. This application has been made by the appellant convicted by the trial Court under Section 398/506 IPC read with Section 25 of Arms Act. The case against the appellant is that the accused came to the shop of the victim and demanded a re-charge coupon of Tata Company from him. When the victim refused to give the same without payment of money, he (applicant herein) took out a revolver and put his hand in cash box (galla). It was stated that when the victim resisted he went away. The police was informed and police arrested the accused from nearby where he was standing at the corner of a hotel and recovered the revolver.2. Considering the facts and circumstances, I consider that the accused be released on bail on his executing personal bond of ` 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial ...
Tag this Judgment!Gnct of Delhi Vs Jarnail Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 13.10.2004 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in OA No.740/2004.2. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has quashed the order dated 25.04.2003 passed by the disciplinary authority and order dated 27.02.2004 passed by the appellate authority, whereby the services of the respondent herein, who was a Head Constable in the Delhi Police, were terminated without holding a departmental enquiry. Power was exercised by the Disciplinary Authority under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India.3. The reasoning of the disciplinary authority is being reproduced for the sake of facility:"The involvement of the Police H.C. in above bot...
Tag this Judgment!Rohtas Goel and anr. Vs. Somay Nayak and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in Digest?ORDER1. This is a suit for permanent injunction and damages. Plaintiff No.1 Rohtas Goel is the Chairman and Managing Director of plaintiff No.2 M/s Omaxe Construction Ltd., which is a company engaged in real estate development and construction of buildings, roads, bridges, malls, shops, etc. It has been alleged that the plaintiffs adopted "Omaxe" as a part of their corporate name and their services in the year 1989 and have been conducting their business activities, using that trade name. The plaintiffs have developed a number of projects, consisting of apartments and villas, including Omaxe Plaza Wedding Mall, Omaxe Green Valley, Omaxe NRI City, Omaxe Arcade, Omaxe Heights and Omaxe City. Omaxe has thus become a well-recognized name in the field of real estate, is a coveted property of the plaintiffs and is en...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Vachhar Vs. High Court of Delhi
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ORDER.1. Petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the Delhi High Court on 8.10.1971 and was promoted as a Upper Division Clerk on 15.5.1984. Having cleared a departmental promotion examination she was promoted as Assistant on ad-hoc basis (re-designated as Senior Judicial Assistant) on 28.8.1990 but was informed that she must improve her work for the reason, functioning as a Upper Division Clerk there were repeated instances of the working of the petitioner being indifferent, callous and showing no interest in her work and in respect whereof intimation was given to her from time to time. Since her working did not improve, vide order dated 7.3.1992, ad-hoc promotion of the petitioner as an Assistant was not extended and she was reverted to the post of UDC.2. Hereinafter the parties are at variance with eac...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Naeem @ Chuha Vs State (Nct) of Delhi
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? ORDERThis application has been made by the appellant convicted by the trial Court under Section 398/506 IPC read with Section 25 of Arms Act. The case against the appellant is that the accused came to the shop of the victim and demanded a re-charge coupon of Tata company from him. When the victim refused to give the same without payment of money, he (applicant herein) took out a revolver and put his hand in cash box (galla). It was stated that when the victim resisted he went away. The police was informed and police arrested the accused from nearby where he was standing at the corner of a hotel and recovered the revolver. Considering the facts and circumstances, I consider that the accused be released on bail on his executing personal bond of ` 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court...
Tag this Judgment!Mahinder Singh Vs State
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes. 1.By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 320 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed that this Court should compound the offence under Section 452 IPC committed by the petitioner in order to secure the ends of justice and to maintain peace and harmony amongst the disputed parties, since the petitioner had entered into compromise in respect of other offences in respect of the same incident.2. A perusal of documents filed by the petitioner would show that the petitioner was an accused in FIR No. 319/2000 PS Mandawali and he was charged by the learned MM under Section 147, 323, 325, 356, 379 & 452 IPC read with Section 149 of IPC. The petitioner entered into a compromise with the victims and an application for compounding of offences was made. As far as offences under Section 147, 323, 325, 356, 3...
Tag this Judgment!S.S. Ahluwalia Vs. C.B.i.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not YES3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest YESORDER:1.These two revision petitions by S.S. Ahluwalia and his brother Inderjit Singh are directed against the order on the point of charge dated 23rd February, 2008 passed by the Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI, for short). It has been held in the impugned order that a case is made out for framing of charges against the two petitioners under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) read with Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC read with Sections 5(1)(e) and 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as PC Act for short). Substantive charges against S.S. Ahluwalia have also been framed under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC as well as under Sections 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the PC Act.2. The allegation is that durin...
Tag this Judgment!Ferrero Spa and anr. Vs. Shri Maa Distribution (India) Pvt Ltd and anr ...
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers Yes. may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes.3. Whether the judgment should be Yes. reported in the Digest?ORFER1. This common order will dispose of pending an ad-interim injunction application as well as IA No.13116/2010 by the first defendant seeking de-sealing and release of goods; the order will also dispose of an application being IA No.13829/2010 whereby the plaintiff seeks an order that the keys of the first defendant premises be taken back on the file of the Court and retained in the Registry.2. By an order dated 14.09.2010 the Court on an overall consideration of the suit, the list of documents and other materials had granted an ex-parte ad-interim order restraining the first defendant from marketing the products "Cherier" and "Ginnou" as it prima facie infringed the plaintiff's "Ferrero Rocher" and "Nutella" brands particularly the trademark in the get up as well shape of the product, packing etc. T...
Tag this Judgment!