Delhi Court November 2010 Judgments
Unique Kitchen-aids Pvt Ltd Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1.This petition under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act for short) is for restoration of the name of the petitioner- Unique Kitchen Aids Private Limited in the register maintained by the Registrar of Companies. The name of the aforesaid company was struck off by the Registrar of Companies vide notification published in the Gazette Notification dated 26th April, 2008.2. The Registrar of Companies in their reply has stated that notices under Section 560(1)(2) and (3) of the Act were issued to the petitioner company from time to time but there was no response and in these circumstances action under Section 560(5) of the Act was taken. It is also stated that the petitioner company had defaulted in filing of its annual returns for the period ending 30th September, 2003 to 30th September, 2008 and the balance sheets as on 31st March, 2003 to 31st March, 2008.3. The petitioner company has placed on record copy of their income tax returns filed by them for several assessment ...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh BatrA. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
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? 1. Naresh Batra, the petitioner herein was appointed as a Mobile Booking Clerk and in the year 2004 was posted at the Railway Booking Office, at HNZM (Hazrat Nizzamudin) Railway Station.2. The Vigilance Department of the Railways claimed to have received information of ongoing malpractices at the booking office at HNZM railway station. As per the complaint, at the booking window, the persons concerned were overcharging the passengers while issuing tickets. On 25.3.2004 a vigilance team comprising of Shri S.S Bawa and Shri Ashwani Kumar Sharma both Sr.VPs/NDBH set a trap in which they associated two railway officers to act as the decoy and the shadow witness. Shri Som Pal PPR/NDLS was made to as the shadow witness and Shri Ashish Kujur TTE/CH was to act as the decoy customer.3. As planned on 25.3.2004 the two men from ...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board. Vs. Parul Dhingra and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
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? 1. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 18.3.2010, purporting to follow the ratio of law laid down by this Court in W.P.(C) No.7297/2007 Sachin Gupta & Ors. v. DSSSB & Ors., the Tribunal has held that the respondent Parul Dhingra would be entitled to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher (Primary) under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.2. Parul Dhingra had sought appointment as an Assistant Teacher (Primary) in response to an advertisement No.8 dated 6-12 October 2007 and it is not in dispute that she was aged more than 27 years as on date of the advertisement. That she had obtained ETE Diploma in the year 2002 is also not in ispute. It may be noted that Parul Dhingra was born on 23.1.1979.3. As per the advertisement the maximum age for eligibility was 27 years and thus, as per the advertisement Parul Dhingra was o...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarikadhish Jewels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dwarikadhish Finance Investment Pvt ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
ORDER1.This joint petition under Sections 391(2) and 394 read with Sections 100 to 104 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act for short) has been filed by Dwarikadhis Jewels Pvt. Ltd., transferor No.1 company, Dwarikadhis Capital Pvt. Ltd., transferor No.2 company , Dwarikadhis Investments Pvt. Ltd., transferor No.3 company, Dwarikadhis Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., transferor No.4 company and Dwarikadhis Finance and Investment Company Pvt. Ltd., transferee company for approval of scheme of arrangement enclosed with the petition as annexure A-1.2. The petitioner had earlier filed Company Application (M) No.63/2010, which was disposed of vide order dated 19th April, 2010. By the said order, the Court had dispensed with the need and requirement to call for a meeting of the shareholders and the creditors in view of the no objection certificates/consents.3. The petitioner along with the present petition has filed copy of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the transferor companies ...
Tag this Judgment!Omkar. Vs. Chander Pal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant, who is aggrieved of an order dated 29.09.2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 38/2004, whereby the learned Civil Judge has dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC.2. The appellant has filed a civil suit against the respondents/defendants for their ejectment from the suit property and for recovery of possession and recovery of arrears of the rent as well as the recovery of menses profit and damages with pendent elite interest @18% per annum till its realization.3. According to the appellant, the respondents were unauthorized occupants in the suit property even though they were inducted as tenants by virtue of rent deed executed by the parties. It is also contended by the appellant that the defendants/respondents were n...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari Vs Inder Kaur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
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: ORDER1. This order shall dispose of an appeal which was earlier filed in 1973 as a Regular Second Appeal and later registered as FAO against the order and decree dated 23.12.1972 passed in the first appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree passed in suit No. 231/1996 decided by the ASJ Delhi dated 27.01.1969 whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant was declared as having abated on account of their not moving the application under order 22 Rule 4 read with Rule 9 CPC within time.2. The background of filing of this appeal is, that late Shri Atma Singh Namdhari who was one of the owner of suit property bearing No. D-10, Rana pratap Bagh, Delhi executed a Will dated 5.12.1953 bequeathing said property in favour of Smt. Leelawati Namdhari, Smt. Jugesh and one Ram Rattan Singh Namda...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Sekhri and Another Vs M/S. Tinna Oils and Chemicals and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. Whether 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. These applications have been filed by ADM Interoceanic Limited, the respondent No. 2, for dismissal of the present appeals under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as Companies Act, for short) filed by Vijay Sekhri and others. It is submitted that by the impugned orders dated 20th July, 2010 the C.A. NOS. 1701-1702/2010 in Company Law Board (hereinafter referred to as CLB, for short) has allowed the applications under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Arbitration Act, for short) and these orders are not appealable under Section 50 of the Arbitration Act. Accordingly, the appeals under section 10F of the Companies Act are not maintainable, in view of the specific bar stipulated by Section 50 of the Companies Act.2. The appell...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Bisno Vs. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and the order on sentence in Sessions Case No.37/04 FIR No.163/95 P.S. Mangol Puri respectively dated 10.12.2004 and 15.12.2004 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Appellants, for the offence under Section 304B IPC have been sentenced to undergo RI for the period seven years, besides fine of `1,000/-, in default to undergo SI for the period of 30 days and for the offence under Section 498A to undergo RI for the period of one year, besides fine of `500/-, in default to undergo SI for the period of 15 days.2. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that appellant Manoj was married to Sunita @ Sonu (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") on 22.12.1991. After the marriage, the deceased Sunita started living with her husband and in-laws, namely, her father-in-law Mohinder Singh(since expired), mother-in-law Bisno and brother-in-law...
Tag this Judgment!Omkar Vs. Chander Pal and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ORDER1. This appeal is filed by the appellant, who is aggrieved of an order dated 29.09.2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 38/2004, whereby the learned Civil Judge has dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC.2. The appellant has filed a civil suit against the respondents/defendants for their ejectment from the suit property and for recovery of possession and recovery of arrears of the rent as well as the recovery of mesne profit and damages with pendent elite interest @18% per annum till its realization.3. According to the appellant, the respondents were unauthorized occupants in the suit property even though they were inducted as tenants by virtue of rent deed executed by the parties. It is also contended by the appellant that the defendants/respondents we...
Tag this Judgment!Neena Shad Vs. Mcd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2010
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 the Digest?ORDER.1. Between the years 2001-2002 Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "MCD") appointed 41 doctors as Medical Officers (Ayurveda) on contractual basis, including the petitioners who are married to each other. The relevant portion of the letters containing the terms and conditions of the appointment of said Medical Officers issued by MCD reads as under:-" .With reference to his/her Walk-in-interview and approval of Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Dr.Neena Shad/Dr.Sunil Chaudhary is hereby given Offer of Appointment to the post of Ayurvedic Vaid on contract basis at a fixed amount of Rs.10,000/- per month initially for a period of six months, or till such time the post is filled up on regular basis through UPSC, whichever is earlier subject to the following terms and conditions:-1. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »