Delhi Court October 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 8 of about 99 results (0.021 seconds)Shri Kewal Kishan Vs M/S. Khurana Kaj House.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER.1.Present revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for short as Code) has been filed by petitioner against order dated 12th May, 2010, passed by Senior Civil Judge, New Delhi, vide which application of petitioner under Order 7 rule 11 of the Code was dismissed.2. Brief facts of this case are that, respondent (plaintiff in the trial court) is a partnership firm with Mr. Ravinder Pal Singh and Mr. Paramjeet Singh as its partner. Respondents firm had taken the suit property on rent from the father of petitioner in 1976-1977. Petitioner has been threatening to raise construction over the roof of the suit property which form part of respondents tenancy. Accordingly, respondent filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against petitioner and Municipal Corporation o...
Tag this Judgment!K.D.Ram Vs Indian Tourism Development Corporation 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. Vide order dated 25.8.1983, in view of the fact that the inquiry report held the petitioner guilty of 7 out of 14 indictments of which he was charged, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of reducing the petitioner from the rank of Accounts Officer to the lower post of Senior Accountant. The Appellate Authority rejected the Appeal vide order dated 7.10.1983 which Appellate order was quashed on account of being a non-reasoned order and at the remanded stage the Appellate Authority passed the order dated 12.11.1997 maintaining the penalty. Petitioner challenged the same by filing a writ petition in this Court which was transferred to the Tribunal where it was registered as TA No.104/2009. Same has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 29.10.2009.2. Notwithstanding various grounds urged in the writ p...
Tag this Judgment!Harvinder Singh Kohli 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. This criminal appeal under Section 27 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("the Act" for short) read with Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred by the appellant assailing the judgment dated 4th August, 2010 and the order on sentence dated 5th August, 2010 passed by learned Special Judge whereby the appellant was found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) of the Act and was sentenced to undergo two years imprisonment each and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each under the two offences for which he was convicted.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the present appeal are that the appellant Harvinder Singh Kohli was working as Area Health Inspector of the area where sweet shop of complainant was situated viz. D-300, Tagore Garden, New Delhi. The father of compl...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Ashoka Electrical Industries and ors. Vs Govt. of Nct of Delhi an ...
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? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No 1. The short prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the Respondent No. 3 Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (DSIDC) to extend the benefit of the general amnesty scheme to the Petitioners in respect of Plot No. 201, Pocket-K, Sector2, admeasuring 150 sq.m. in the Bawana Industrial Area (hereafter the plot in question). The Petitioner also challenges the letter dated 15th December 2003 issued by the DSIDC cancelling the Petitioners allotment of the plot in question.2. The Petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition (C) Nos. 7917 & 7918 of 2004 in this Court challenging the cancellation of allotment. This Court recorded the statement of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that "in view of the amnesty scheme brought into force on 28 th April 2004, the Petitioner should be p...
Tag this Judgment!Brahma Steyr Tractors Ltd. 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? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No 1. The Petitioner which is a private limited company having its registered office at Chandigarh seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) to pay the Mumbai Port Trust (MPT) (Respondent No.3 herein) the demurrage charges claimed by MPT in respect of Lot No. 6747 belonging to the Petitioner. An alternate prayer is for a direction to the DGFT to reimburse the Petitioner the demurrage charges. The Petitioner also seeks the quashing of the auction held by the MPT on 7th November 2002 and for a direction to the MPT to decide the Petitioners representation dated 14th March 2002 regarding the levy of the accumulated demurrage/port charges.2. The Petitioner, a public limited company having its registered office at Chandigarh, is stated to have been incorporated with the main ...
Tag this Judgment!Mutallib Vs Sunil Jain
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 revision petition has been filed by petitioner against order dated 13th July, 2010 passed by Civil Judge, Delhi. 2. Brief facts of this case are that petitioner is a tenant under the respondent in premises H.No. 3577, Band Gali, Near Jain Mandir, Dharampura, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi.3. Petitioner filed suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against respondent on the ground that respondent should not get the premises vacated without due process of law. In those proceedings, respondent filed an application under Order 39 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short as Code).4. Vide impugned order, trial court held that the rate of rent of premises is Rs.19,000/- p.m. and rent has been paid till 9th August, 2009. Petitioner was directed to make payment of Rs.1,14,000/- as rent from September, ...
Tag this Judgment!Bijwasan Gram Vikas Samiti Vs the L.G. Delhi 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? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?YesORDER:1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of Notification No. F.9(10)/08/L&B;/LA/14131 dated 4th February, 2010 issued by Joint Secretary (L&B;), Land & Building Department, Government of NCT of Delhi for acquisition of land in village Bijwasan under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") for construction of Road Over Bridge.2. The relevant facts of the present case are that the land measuring 12-03 bigha in Village Bijwasan has been acquired under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) of the Act for a public purpose, namely, for construction of Road Over Bridge.3. It is the respondents case that the land in question is needed in larger public interest for an infrastructural project that h...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Vs 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?1. These appeals have been preferred by the appellants/accused persons against the Judgment dated 20th April, 2009 and Order on the point of Sentence dated 9th June, 2009 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence of gang rape and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding these appeals are that the prosecutrix in this case had gone to see her husband's elder brother namely Rajender at Harsh Vihar on 19th January, 2005 since he was not keeping well. She got late and was coming back to her house around 10 pm. She had caught a bus which went out of order at Loni Road Gol Chakkar. She saw a TSR parked there and enquired from the TSR driver if he would take her to Yamuna Vihar. The driver said yes but...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S. Natraj Album Industries (Pvt . Ltd)
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? No.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.ORDER1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity "Act, 1961") challenging the order dated 28th August, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "Tribunal") in ITA No. 1015/Del/2009, for the assessment year 2001-2002.2. Mrs. Sonia Mathur, learned counsel for Revenue submitted that Tribunal had erred in law in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit. Learned counsel for Revenue further submitted that the Tribunal had erred in law in deleting the addition made on account of commission paid by the assessee to the entry operator @2%.3. However, upon a perusal of the file we find that the said addition was deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short "CIT(A)] and the Tribunal on the ground that the ide...
Tag this Judgment!Pramod Kumar and ors. Vs 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?1. These appeals have been preferred by the appellants/accused persons against the Judgment dated 20th April, 2009 and Order on the point of Sentence dated 9th June, 2009 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence of gang rape and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding these appeals are that the prosecutrix in this case had gone to see her husband's elder brother namely Rajender at Harsh Vihar on 19th January, 2005 since he was not keeping well. She got late and was coming back to her house around 10 pm. She had caught a bus which went out of order at Loni Road Gol Chakkar. She saw a TSR parked there and enquired from the TSR driver if he would take her to Yamuna Vihar. The driver said yes but...
Tag this Judgment!