Delhi Court October 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 7 of about 99 results (0.021 seconds)Bhupender Singh Mehra Vs State Nct of Delhi 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 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 making ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahender Vs State
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 in Digest? Yes ORDER.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.07.1997 and Order on Sentence dated 12.08.1997, whereby the appellants were convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with section 34 thereof and were sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of `1,000/- each or to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each in default.2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 31.08.1993 there was a severe altercation between deceased Samad on one hand and the appellants Rehman and Mahender on the other hand, when the appellants told the deceased that it was not proper for him to make complaints against others. This is also the case of the prosecution that on 01.09.1993 also there was an altercation between them at about 11:00 A.M. Then, at about 2:30 A.M. they commi...
Tag this Judgment!Rehman Vs State
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 in Digest? Yes ORDER.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.07.1997 and Order on Sentence dated 12.08.1997, whereby the appellants were convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with section 34 thereof and were sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of `1,000/- each or to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each in default.2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 31.08.1993 there was a severe altercation between deceased Samad on one hand and the appellants Rehman and Mahender on the other hand, when the appellants told the deceased that it was not proper for him to make complaints against others. This is also the case of the prosecution that on 01.09.1993 also there was an altercation between them at about 11:00 A.M. Then, at about 2:30 A.M. they commi...
Tag this Judgment!Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs Cbi
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 Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P.C.) the petitioner has assailed an order dated 23rd December, 2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) dismissing the Revision filed by the petitioner against the order of learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) whereby delay of 142 days in filing the complaint by the respondent under Official Secrets Act was condoned.2. A search was conducted of the office premise of an official of the petitioner on 28th October, 1998 and as a result of this search some secret documents were recovered from the table drawer of Shri V. Balasubramanian, the Group President of Reliance Industries Limited (the Petitioner) and a criminal case bearing FIR No. 496 of 1998 was registered by the Delhi Police in this respect...
Tag this Judgment!Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs Cbi
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. These revision petitions have been preferred by the petitioners assailing an order dated 22nd May, 2009 passed by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate whereby she dismissed an application dated 4th November, 2008 made by the applicant seeking directions to the complainant to produce all its witnesses before sending the case to the Court of Sessions.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding these petitions are that during investigation of an FIR No.799 of 2008 under Sections 365, 302, 506, 323, 384 of Indian Penal Code, search of office premises of Reliance Industries Limited was carried out by the investigating officer of that case in pursuant to a search warrant . During search, from the table drawer of Mr. V. Balasubramaniam, Group President of M/s Reliance Industries, certain photocopies of Secr...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Olympic Association Vs Veeresh Malik and ors.
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? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be Yes reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. The present judgment will dispose of three writ petitions filed by the Indian Olympic Association (the petitioner in W.P. 876/2007, hereafter referred to as "the IOA"), the Sanskriti School, petitioner in W.P. 1212/2007, (hereafter referred to as "the school") and the Organizing Committee of the Commonwealth Games, 2010, Delhi (petitioner in W.P. 1161/2008, hereafter referred to as "the Games Committee"). The common question involved is as to the applicability of the Right to Information Act (hereafter referred to as "the Act"), with broad reference to whether the writ petitioners are "Public Authorit(ies)" within the meaning of the term under Section 2(h) of the said Act. Petitioners facts and contentions:2. Briefly the facts of the case in W.P. 876/2007, filed by the IOA are that the IOA is the a...
Tag this Judgment!interglobe Aviation Limited Vs the Secretary Competition Commission of ...
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of the local news papers be allowed to see the order?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?3. Whether the order should be reported in the Digest? ORDER1. Both writ petitions challenge an order dated 16th June 2010 passed by the Competition Commission of India (`CCI') under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (`CA').2. The background to the present petitions is that by an order dated 13 th February 2009, the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (`MRTP Commission') took cognizance, under Section 11(1) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (`MRTP Act'), of reports in the print and visual media that airline operators, including the Petitioners herein, had collectively increased air fares and withdrawn the promotional fares as a result of which additional costs were imposed on the consumer and competition in the industry was reduced. The MRTP Commission formed a prima facie opinion that the alleged practice was a restrict...
Tag this Judgment!Tarsen Singh Vs Gurvinder Singh
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? Yes0RDER.1.Present revision petition under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short as Act) has been filed against order dated 8th February, 2010, passed by Additional Rent Controller (for short as Controller) Delhi. Vide impugned order, application of petitioner/tenant for leave to defend was dismissed and eviction order was passed in favour of respondent/landlord and against petitioner.2. Respondent filed eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25-B of Act on the ground that he is the owner and landlord of premises bearing no. WZ-152, Mukherjeet Park, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. Petitioner is his tenant in respect of shop in above said property as shown in red colour in the site plan, at monthly rent of Rs.715/- exclusive of other charges. Respondent is a trained and qu...
Tag this Judgment!Qazi MoinuddIn and ors. Vs Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
ORDER1. The prayer in this writ petition by five residents of District Dhar in Madhya Pradesh is for quashing for a direction contained in Clause 3 of the decision dated 7th April 2003 of the Directorate General of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) at New Delhi concerning entry into the monument at Bhojshala, District Dhar, Madhya Pradesh.2. In the writ petition the justification for approaching the High Court of Delhi by five residents of District Dhar in Madhya Pradesh, in relation to entry into a monument located also in Madhya Pradesh, is that the Respondent ASI, whose decision is under challenge, is located within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.3. Mr. Anup Chaudhari, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioners pleaded that under Article 226(1) of the Constitution, as explained by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India AIR 1961 SC 532, a writ petition brought forth by a person before a High Court within wh...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner Ofincome Tax. Vs Jindal Stainless Limited.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the 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 the Digest?Yes ORDER.1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, "Act") challenging the order dated 22nd June, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "Tribunal") in ITA No. 1847/Del/2008, for the Assessment Year 2004- 2005.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the present case are that the respondent-assessee filed a return declaring income of ` 71.43 crores. However, the assessment was completed under Section 143(3)/153A of the Act wherein respondent-assessee's income was computed at ` 83.06 crores. On 10th April, 2007, the Assessing Officer (in short, "AO") reduced the income to ` 79.81 crores under Section 154 of the Act.3. Subsequently, as the AO was of the opinion that the respondent- assessee had not added a sum of ` 39.28 lacs being provisio...
Tag this Judgment!