Delhi Court October 2010 Judgments

M/S. Holly International Pvt Ltd Vs Registrar of Companies

Court: Delhi

ORDER1.M/s. Holly International Private Limited has filed this petition under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to restore the name of the petitioner company in the register maintained by the Registrar of Companies. Name of the petitioner company was struck off from the Register of the Registrar of Companies, Delhi and Haryana vide notification published in the Gazette of India dated 26th April, 2008.2. As per the reply filed by the Registrar of Companies, the petitioner company had not filed their annual returns, balance sheet and accounts for the financial year 2002-03 onwards and, therefore, proceedings under Section 560 of the Act were initiated. In the reply it is also stated that notices were issued to the petitioner company from time to time and when there was no response, an order under Section 560(5) of the Act was passed and published in the Gazette of India on 26th April, 2008.3. The stand of the petitioner is that no show cause n...

Suren International Limited Vs Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the levy of demurrage charges by the Container Corporation of India Ltd. (CCI) Respondent No. 3 herein in respect of 40 containers. The prayer is for a direction to Respondent No.2, Commissioner of Customs to de-stuff the 13 containers remaining out of the 40 and release them without any further delay. Directions are also sought to Respondent No. 2 to pay the shipping line charges to the respective shipping lines.2. In July 2001, on receiving a tip off about clandestine import of metal scrap, containers imported by the Petitioner purportedly containing aluminum scrap were seized by the Customs Department. The Petitioner was alleged to have imported not just aluminum scrap but scrap of other metals like nickel and tin which were seized and taken control of by the Customs Departme...

Pooja Saxena Vs State and Another

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 Digest ?ORDER.1. Pooja Saxena, the petitioner herein, vide instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is seeking direction for quashing of the order of learned ACMM dated 10.03.2010 as well as FIR No.59/2010 dated 22.03.2010 registered at P.S. Roop Nagar pursuant to the aforesaid order of learned ACMM.2. Briefly put, facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner Pooja Saxena filed a complaint of dowry demand and harassment against her husband (respondent No.2) with CAW Cell and on the basis of the said complaint, after preliminary inquiry and on the recommendation of the senior police officer, an FIR No.232/2009 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC was registered against respondent No.2 Sameer Saxena and others at P.S....

indo-pacific Investments Pvt Ltd Vs Bistro Hospitality Management Pvt ...

Court: Delhi

ORDER1. This is a joint application under Section 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 for first motion in respect of scheme of arrangement and demerger between Indo Pacific Investments Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferor company) and Bistro Hospitality Management Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferee company).2. The scheme of arrangement and demerger has been enclosed as annexure 1 to this petition.3. In paragraph 2.4 of the scheme, the expression "Demerged Undertaking" of the transferor company has been defined to mean the hospitality/hospitality related education sector division of the transferor company consisting of the details mentioned therein. The scheme of arrangement and demerger proposes to demerge the "demerged undertaking" as defined in paragraph 2.4 from the transferor company and amalgamate/merge the same with the transferee company.4. It is stated in the petition that the transferor and transferee company have no creditors a...

M/S Puneet Expo Vs Union of India and ors

Court: Delhi

1. Whether reporters of the local news papers be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes1. The prayers in this writ petition filed by M/s Puneet Expo, a proprietorship concern of which Shri Dinesh Kapoor is the proprietor, are for a direction to the Airports Authority of India (AAI) Respondent No. 3 herein, not to charge any demurrage charges or in the alternative direct the Customs Department, Respondent No. 2 herein, to pay the demurrage charges accrued on the goods of the Petitioner to the AAI. A further prayer is for a direction to the AAI to realise the demurrage charges accrued on the consignment in question kept in the custody of the AAI from the Customs Department.2. The Petitioner sought to export readymade garments to Russia by way of four shipping bills through M/s SAM Aviation Pvt. Ltd. on 6th June 2001. It is stated that the shipping bills were cleared on the same date. While ...

Union of India and ors. Vs Rajeev BhargavA.

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. Having an outstanding academic career; topping the Engineering Examination conducted by the Roorkee Engineering College (now IIT Roorkee) and having stood first at the All India Engineering Service Examination conducted by UPSC, Rajeev Bhargava joined Indian Railway Service of Civil Engineering and after completion of training joined duties and in the very first year of his regular service, as per the first ACR written and agreed to by the Accepting Authority, earned the grading Very Good with a further note by the Reporting Authority: A young energetic and sincere engineer who has acquainted himself very well in the management of his office and field work. He will prove an asset to the department.'2. Whether the prophecy of Shri P.N.Mehta the then Senior Divisional Engineer, Northern Railway and the author of...

Dhoot Developers Private Limited Vs Union of India 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? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ORDER.1. The Director General, Married Accommodation Project of the Ministry of Defence along with the Director (Contracts) of the same Ministry issued a pre-qualification notice No.1/2009-2010 in terms of letter dated 18.5.2009 inviting applications for pre-qualification for the bids, in response whereto the petitioners submitted their pre- qualification bid on 8.7.2009 for construction of dwelling units at Army/Air Force/Navy Station for MAP Phase-II. A list of 139 contractors for MAP Phase-II, who were found fit for the pre- qualification of MAP Phase-II was displayed on the website of respondents 2 & 3 and the name of the Joint Venture of the two petitioners figures in the same.2. We may note that petitioner No.1 is a private limited company while petitioner No.2 is a limited company incorporated and r...

Uoi Vs Krishna Mohan Dixit

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. This common order shall dispose of the batch of the aforesaid writ petitions filed by Union of India, the petitioner herein aggrieved of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") dated 22.10.2009 in O.A.Nos.2349/2009, 2377/2009, 2353/2009, the order dated 16.02.2010 in O.A.No.99/2010 and the order dated 21.08.2009 in O.A.No. 586/2009 giving directions to ignore some of the ACRs and to consider some other ACRs for the purpose of considering the case of the respondents who all are the members of Indian Revenue Service working as CIT and CCIT for further promotion by a review DPC on the ground that the ACRs in question were below bench mark "very good" and were not communicated to the respondents at the relevant time. The other reason given in some of the ...

Kashmiri Lal Vs Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

1. Whether reporters of the local news papers be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes1. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 4 th June 1997 passed by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade (`ADGFT') under Section 4-K of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 [`IEC Act'] read with Section 20(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 [the `FTDR Act'] imposing a penalty of Rs.1 crore on the Petitioner for utilizing material imported duty free "for a value of Rs. 48,07,561/- otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of the said licence." The petition also challenges an order dated 1 st May 1998 passed by the Appellate Committee dismissing the Petitioner's appeal and the consequential order dated 31st July 1998 issued by the Foreign Trade Development Officer asking the Petitioner to deposit the penalty amount within 20 days.2. While dir...

Diwan Singh Mehra Vs State Nct of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2011Del76(FB)

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? 1.By the present petition, the petitioners have assailed order dated 5th November, 2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on an application under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short Domestic Violence Act) made by the respondent. Petitioners are father-in-law and brother-in-law (elder brother of husband) of respondent. The husband in this case was working in New Zealand and had come to India for marriage. It seems that the marriage did not take off at all. The allegations made by the parties against each other are not relevant for deciding these petitions. 2. The respondent in her application under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act made husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law (jeth) and another brother-in-law (nandoi) as respondents giving a common address. On maki...