Delhi Court October 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 10 of about 99 results (0.023 seconds)Bharti and anr. Vs the State
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. These two petitions under Section 438 Cr.P.C have been preferred by the petitioners seeking anticipatory bail.2. An FIR under Section 307 IPC has been registered against the petitioners at the instance of injured Hari Shankar. The MLC of Hari Shankar shows that he received simple blunt injuries. It is submitted by counsels for the petitioners/accused that the entire family of the petitioners has been falsely named by the complainant in his report. The complainant and his other family members had earlier also quarreled with the petitioners and a case under Section 325, 308,323 IPC was going on against the complainant and other accused persons and in that context only the entire family has been roped in and named. On the other hand, the counsel for complainant who was assisting the State counsel showed certain photograp...
Tag this Judgment!Sukriti Upadhyay Vs University of Delhi
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER.1.Calling in question the legal substantiality of the order dated 12th July, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 13354/2009, the present intra-Court appeal has been preferred under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Be it noted, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the said writ petitionalong with other writ petitions by a composite order.2. The facts which are requisite to be stated are that the appellant- petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) was a student of first semester in the LL.B course in University of Delhi and her attendance was 56%. It was pleaded that she could not attend classes as she was suffering from back ache and infection in the digestive system as a result of which she was compelled to go to her hometown in Rajasthan from 1st August, 2009 to 1st Sept...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S. Dhingra Metal Works.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes.1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity "Act") challenging the order dated 4th January, 2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "Tribunal") in ITA No. 2033/Del/2009 for the Assessment Year 2005- 2006.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the present case are that on 14th September, 2004, a survey under Section 133A of the Act was conducted out on the respondent-assessees business premises. During the course of survey, the tax officials noticed some discrepancies in stock and cash in hand. During the said survey, respondent-assessee surrendered an amount of ` 99,50,000/- and offered the same for the purposes of taxation. The additional income offered included a sum of ` 45,00,000/- on account of excess stock found during the cour...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhir and anr. Vs State
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? No ORDER.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.11.2000 and Order on Sentence dated 29.11.2000, whereby both the appellants were convicted under Section 29 of the NDPS Act and were sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years each and to pay fine of Rs. 1 lakh each or to undergo RI for six months each in default. The appellant Sudhir was further convicted under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and was sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1 lakh or to go undergo RI for six months in default. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The prosecution produced as many as 13 witnesses in support of its case. No witness was produced in defence.3. PW-3 Head Constable Suresh Kumar stated that on 10th October, 1999 he, along with SI Ramesh Kansal, Constable Amar Pal and Constable Sunil Kum...
Tag this Judgment!The Nav Nirman Cooperative Group Housing Socity Ltd. Vs A.K.Murarka an ...
Court: Delhi
Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES To be referred to Reporter or not? YES Whether the judgment should be YES reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. The Nav Nirman Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd.(the Society for short), a registered society and now governed by the provisions of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 was allotted 4.4 acres of land being Plot No.7, I.P.Extension for construction of residential flats for its members. The Society has 264 members and flats were constructed for the members. There were only 118 covered car garages available against those flats. Applications were invited from the members on 26.06.1990 estimating the cost of each garage at Rs.30,000/-. In view of there being less garages than the applicants, a draw of lots was held on 24.02.1991 and the successful persons were allotted garages. Soon thereafter, one of the members surrendered a car garage which was allotted to the first member on the waiting list since th...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Kumar Beri Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
M.L. Sahni, Member (Judicial): 1. This appeal filed by complainant in Complaint Case No. 44/2009 pending before District Forum-II, Mehrauli, New Delhi is directed against the interim/interlocutory order dated 17.9.2010 directing the appellant/complainant to pay 75% of the bill amount Rs. 86,629.24 within 10 days from the date of order. It has been further provided in the impugned order that if the appellant/complainant failed to pay the bill amount within due time, Electricity Board/BSES can disconnect the electricity supply. 2. The complaint case was then fixed for evidence of the respondent/OP on 13.12.2010. 3. Since the impugned order is interim order, therefore appeal has been treated as revision. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the material on record. 5. The facts giving rise to this revision, precisely stated, are that the appellant/complainant filed the complaint before District Forum on 16.1.2009 whereupon the interim relief was grante...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. This case was filed in Delhi High Court on 08.05.2009 and subsequently it was transferred to this Tribunal on its formation on 05th November, 2009. 2. By this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 01.08.2008 and for grant of disability pension with effect 26th July, 2004 @ 60% which should be computed @ 75% in terms of broad banding Government of India Notification. 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 09th March, 2002 after completing his training, he was posted to his Unit at Pokhran. Here he developed mental disease of Schizophrenia in July, 2003. He was hospitalised and subsequently he was invalided out on 26th July, 2004. His disability was given as 60% for life but neither attributable nor aggravated by Military Service. He filed appeal for grant of disability pension which were rejected. 4. On 23rd January, 2008, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in Delhi High Court which he withdrew since the...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Kumar Bhati No. 14416501 (Dmt) Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. This Petition challenges the Summary Court Martial (SCM) proceedings of 4th May 2007 wherein the petitioner was held guilty for three offences Under Army Act Section 64 (e) and was sentenced to be reduced to the Ranks, to suffer imprisonment for three months and to be dismissed from service. On formation of this tribunal, the above writ petition has been transferred for disposal. Under section 15 of the Armed Tribunal Act 2007, appeal lies against any order, decision, finding or sentenced passed by a court martial or any matter connected therewith or incidental thereto. Since, in this case, the petitioner challenged the conviction by court martial by filing writ petition which has been remitted to this Tribunal, the same has been converted into an appeal under Section 15. 2. Counsel for the appellant stated that the petitioner was enrolled in the Army in the year 1995 as a Driver and have been performing his duties diligently and with the full confidence and trust of his Senior Off...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Ram Sri Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Applicant by this petition has prayed that direction may be given to respondents to grant special family pension in favour of applicant with effect from the date of death of her husband along with arrears with interest @ 12%. She also prayed that respondents may be directed to pay her ex-gratia payment in the sum of Rs. 5 Lacs and prayed that order dated 19.07.2006 and May, 2007 may be quashed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that applicant is the wife of deceased Sub. K.N. Chourasia who was enrolled in the Army as combatant soldier on 30.03.1975. He was on leave on 07.03.2005 with permission to prefix 06.03.2005 and suffix 08.03.2005 being Sunday and holiday respectively. While the deceased was coming from the casual leave to rejoin his duty met with an accident on 08.03.2005 and he was taken to Air Force Hospital, Kanpur for treatment but was declared dead. A Court of Inquiry was held and death was declared attributable to Military Service as per Regulations of the Army, 1987. The...
Tag this Judgment!