Delhi Court October 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 5 of about 99 results (0.009 seconds)Aditya Departmental Stores Ltd and ors. Vs. Agarwal Associates Promote ...
Court: Delhi
ORDER (ORAL)For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay in filing the report by the Official Liquidator and the Regional Director (Northern Region) are condoned.The applications are disposed of.1. This is a joint petition for second motion under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 in the matter of amalgamation of Aditya Departmental Stores Limited, Aditya Properties.Com Private Limited, Agarwal Associates Colonizers Limited, Agarwal Estates Private Limited, Garden City Infracon Private Limited, Joggers Park Infradeveloper Private Limited, Kanika Buildwell Private Limited, Leisure City Buildwell Private Limited, Leisure Valley Promoters Private Limited, Mega City Housing Private Limited, Mega Dream Housing Private Limited, Suntech Infra-Con Private Limited, Tamanna Merchants Private Limited and Vaibhaw Traders Private Limited, the transferor company Nos. 1 to 14 respectively with Agarwal Associates Promoters Consortium Limited, the transferee company. The transfero...
Tag this Judgment!Sudesh Kumar Rana Vs the State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may YES be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO3. Whether the judgment should be NO reported in the Digest?ORDER.This is an application by the applicant seeking interim suspension of sentence for a period of two months for arranging the fees for colleges of his children and for performing ceremonies for his deceased father and brother who have died in September, 2010 and October, 2010.The appellant/applicant was convicted under Section 120-B read with Sections 364 and 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 14 years and a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years under Crl. MB No. 1269/2010 in Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. The appellant/applicant has also been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.50,000/- under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 364 o...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and anr. Vs S.K.Mathur and anr.
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. Since common question of law arises for consideration in the two captioned writ petitions arguments were heard in both the matters on 20.9.2010 and decision was reserved. The present judgment decides both the writ petitions. Pertaining W.P.(C) No.17221-22/2004 the relevant facts are that on 28.08.2000 Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India issued an Office Order pertaining to respondent No.1 of said petition, who was working as Chief Producer in Doordarshan Kendra, Jalandhar whereby the President placed the respondent No.1 under suspension in terms of Rule 10 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "CCS (CCA) Rules"), on the ground that the Ministry is contemplating inititation of disciplinary proceedings against the said resp...
Tag this Judgment!Anshoo Pandey and ors. Vs Uoi and ors.
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. The petitioners herein are the civil services aspirants who successfully cleared Civil Services Examination 2005.2. In August 2006, Department of Personnel and Training (hereinafter referred to as "DOPT"), Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India issued letters containing offer of appointment to the candidates who emerged successful in the Civil Services Examination 2005 which included the petitioners. It is useful to note the contents of the aforesaid letters issued by the Ministry. For the sake of convenience, we are reproducing relevant portion of the letter issued by the Ministry to the petitioner No.1 for the contents of the letters issued to the other petitioners are more or less identical:-"Let me take this opportunity to congratulate you on your success in the Civil Se...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Vs Govt. of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may YES be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO3. Whether the judgment should be NO reported in the Digest?ORDER.This is an application by the appellant/applicant seeking suspension of his sentence and to release him on bail. The appellant/ applicant has been convicted by order dated 17th December, 2009 in Sessions Case No.26 of 2009 under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and under Section of 27 of the Arms Act, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, and a fine of Rs.500/- by order dated 17th December, 2009.The appellant/applicant has sought suspension of his sentence on the ground that he has been convicted without any reliable evidence and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. It is also contended that the prosecution...
Tag this Judgment!Sarita Gupta and ors Vs G E Countrywide Consumer Financial Service Ltd ...
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed No to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NoORDERAllowed subject to just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved by the dismissal of the objections filed by him under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to the award delivered by Shri Sunil Jha, the sole arbitrator published on 11.08.2006. It is not disputed by the appellant that he was aware of the appointment of the arbitrator and in fact had notice of the arbitration proceedings but it is his case that the said arbitrator should not have delivered the award inasmuch as:a) there was no valid arbitration agreement between the parties as the signatures of the appellant were taken on some blank documents.b) the arbitrator was appointed by the respondent without the consent of the appellant which is contrary to Section 21 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Development Authority Vs Kela Devi
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER.1.Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner seeking quashing of order dated 10th March, 2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi.2. Brief facts of this case are that respondent had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner claiming that her husband has occupied a piece of land in the year 1965/1966 out of Khasra Nos. 712/673 and 713/673, Village Wazirpur, Delhi and started residing there after raising a Kuccha structure and started keeping cattles thereupon on about 260 sq. yds. On the remaining portion, respondent planted trees and developed the same. The case of respondent is that the suit property falls on private land and only rest of the land has been acquired.3. Along with the suit, respondent filed an application under...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Niwas Vs Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the 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. Petitioner's challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal by and under OA No.2094/2004 was not successful inasmuch as vide impugned order dated 18.1.2006, OA No.2094/2004 has been dismissed.2. It was the case of the petitioner that benefit of second up gradation under the ACP scheme was being denied to him and additionally he was being discriminated inasmuch as persons junior to him were granted second up gradation under the ACP scheme.3. The Tribunal has found that the petitioner got two up gradations i.e. firstly, when his salary was upgraded in the scale `3050-4590 and when it was further upgraded to `4000-6000.4. Claim of the petitioner that he was discriminated against has been negated.5. Relevant facts to be noted are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable/Rakshak under the Indian R...
Tag this Judgment!Savitri and ors Vs Mohan Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may YES be allowed to see the Judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES3. Whether the judgment should be YES reported in the Digest? (Oral)1. The appellants have challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.3,43,680/- has been awarded to the appellants. The appellants seek enhancement of the award amount.2. The accident dated 27th April, 2005 resulted in the death of Dayanand. The deceased was survived by his widow and six children who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal.3. The deceased was aged 45 years at the time of the accident and was owner cum driver of a light goods vehicle. It was claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month. However, in the absence of sufficient proof of income, the learned Tribunal took the minimum wages of RS.3,045/- per month, deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased and applied the multiplier of 13 to compute the lo...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Keshav Aggarwal Vs Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Banga and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NoORDER.1.Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the appellant against order dated 22nd May, 2010 passed by Additional District Judge, New Delhi, whereby appeal filed by the respondents against order dated 11th February, 2010 passed by Judge Small Cause Court was allowed.2. Brief facts of this case are that petitioner and his wife are the joint owner of the entire third floor of property bearing no. B-365, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are the owners of the ground floor. On the ground floor, there is a front setback, east side common passage and rear setback for common usage of the occupants so as to facilitate the common facilities. There are water pumps installed for each floor adjacent to the underground water tank. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 in v...
Tag this Judgment!