Delhi Court December 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 1 of about 211 results (0.025 seconds)Sanjay Tyagi Vs. State
Court: Delhi
1. Sanjay Tyagi, the petitioner herein vide this application is seeking bail in case FIR No. 140/2009, P.S. Crime Branch, Delhi.2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of this application are that the learned Company Judge of this court, while hearing company petition No. 234/2005, titled "Manjit Kaur v. Nanda Tourism Corporation Ltd." arrived at a prima facie finding that Manjit Kaur was a fictitious person and she had filed petition for winding up of the company on the basis of forged and fabricated bills of M/s. Kumar Security Syndicate, a fictitious entity purported to have provided security services to the company, with a view to defraud. Accordingly, a direction was issued vide order date 18 th April, 2009 to investigate into the matter.3. Pursuant to said directions, Crime Branch, Delhi enquired into the matter and the enquiry revealed that Manjit Kaur and M/s. Kumar Security Syndicate was fictitious entities. Kumar Security Syndicate was the creation of one Sharad Ag...
Tag this Judgment!Vishal Chand JaIn @ V.C. JaIn Vs. C.B.i
Court: Delhi
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 08.07.2005 in Corruption Case No.26/03 FIR No.RC-DAI-2002-A-0054 and the consequent order on sentence dated 11.07.2005 whereby the appellant Vishal Chand Jain was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and awarded RI for the period of two years and to pay fine of `10,000/-, in default to undergo SI for the period of three months. Similar sentence was also awarded to the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act with the direction that substantive sentences awarded for respective offences shall run concurrently.2. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 20.09.2000 complainant Gurcharan Singh (PW2) visited the CBI office, New Delhi and submitted a written complaint against the appellant Vishal Chand Jain, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. As per the complaint E...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
This appeal is against the judgment of conviction of the appellant under Section 20 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act in short) by the Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 25th August, 2007 and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for eleven years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with a default stipulation awarded to him vide order dated 29th August, 2007.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.10.01 Sub-Inspector Rohtash(PW-9) along with Head Constable Ashik Ali(PW-12), Constable Arvind Kumar(PW-2), Constable Rohtash Kumar(PW-7) and Constable Sunder Lal(PW-8), all of whom were posted at Bhajanpura police station, were checking vehicles and pedestrians at night time at 66 foota road, near MCD office, C-12 Yamuna Vihar, Delhi. At about 9.15 p.m. one person(accused-appellant Sunil Kumar) was seen by Sub-Inspector Rohtash Kumar coming from Seelampur side. He was carrying a yellow coloured polythene bag in his hand. On seeing the police picket t...
Tag this Judgment!South India Shipping and Export Co. (Siseco) Vs. Tribal Cooperative Ma ...
Court: Delhi
1. The Appellant impugns the Order dated 02.04.2009 passed by the Learned Single Judge, whereby the Objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 ('A&C; Act') preferred by the Appellant were dismissed on the ground that the Appellant has not been able to disclose any ground to bring his case under Section 34 of the A&C; Act.2. Along with the Appeal, an Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has also been filed for condonation of delay of 433 days in filing the Appeal. According to the Appellant, instead of filing an Appeal, as provided under Section 37 of the A&C; Act, the Appellant mistakenly preferred SLP bearing No.CC.6080/2010 against the impugned order. However, vide Order dated 14.05.2010, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the Appellant to withdraw the Appeal with liberty to seek appropriate remedy under law against the Impugned Order dated 02.04.2009.3. It is the case of the Appellant that the Appeal was filed on 9th July, 2010 as soon ...
Tag this Judgment!Surender Kumar JaIn Vs. Jyoti and anr
Court: Delhi
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.30,70,000/-. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff was having a live-in-relationship with defendant No.1 and they were residing on the first floor of House No.2841, 1 st Floor, Gali No.5, Regbarpura No.2, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031, which the plaintiff had taken on rent. It is also alleged that the plaintiff invested in gold jewellery weighing about 1.5 kg. and kept the same with defendant No.1. Silver ornaments weighing about 1.0 kg. are also alleged to have been purchased by the plaintiff and kept with defendant No.1. The total value of the gold jewellery and silver ornament is stated to be about Rs.30 lakhs. It is also alleged that the plaintiff had kept Rs.70,000/- with defendant No.1 to meet any emergency.2. It is alleged that since differences arose between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, the plaintiff stopped going to the premises where defendant No.1 was residing though all household expenses were being incurred by him and the ren...
Tag this Judgment!Amir Chand Singla Vs. Land Acquisition Collector (South West) and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. The alleged reference sought by the predecessors-in- interest of the petitioner under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the said Act for short) which reference was actually never made qua the portion of the land of the petitioner is forming the basis of rejection of the claim of the petitioner for enhanced compensation on parity with his co-owner under Section 28-A of the said Act. 2. The facts of the case are that Sh.Khyali Ram s/o Sh.Bharta and Sh.Kaptan Singh, Sh.Ran Singh, Sh. Ranbir Singh and Sh.Dharambir Singh, all sons of Sh. Khyali Ram, were the co-owners/co-bhumidars of the land measuring 565 bighas and 19 biswas situated in the village Lado Sarai, New Delhi in respect of which a notification was issued under Section 4 of the said Act on 23.01.1965 seeking to acquire land for planned development of Delhi followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act on 07.12.1966. The co-owners entered into an agreement to sell in respect of 346 bighas and 5 biswas o...
Tag this Judgment!Ranbir Kumar Gugneja Vs. M/S Continental Engines Ltd and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. This is a suit for recovery of `63,65,103/-. The plaintiff was appointed as the Chief Executive Officer of defendants No. 1 to 4 vide appointment letter dated September 1, 2000, followed by a supplementary letter dated September 29, 2000. As per the terms and conditions of his appointment, the plaintiff was entitled for a compensation of `2.50Lacs per month in addition to 10% profit of each of the four companies as also the benefits of contribution to provident fund, accommodation, transportation, medical expenses, entertainment expenses, leave benefits, etc. The plaintiff continued in the employment of defendants No.1 to 4 w.e.f. 30th September 2000 till 31st March 2002.2. It is alleged that after numerous requests from the plaintiff, requesting the defendants to clear his outstanding dues, the defendants sent an e-mail letter dated 4th October 2003 to him attaching therewith a statement of account, giving the amount which according to the defendants was payable to the plaintiff. V...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Singh and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
1. The appellants, Jai Singh and Smt.Savitri Devi, husband and wife, have challenged their conviction by judgement dated 11th October, 2001 under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code for murdering Rakesh Kumar and their sentence to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year by order dated 12th October, 2001 in Sessions Case No.350 of 1996, titled as State v. Jai Singh & Another arising from the FIR No.434 of 1992, under Sections 307/302/342/34 of the Indian Penal Code, PS S.P. Badli.2. According to the prosecution, a vacant piece of land at the back of the house of the appellants, which was also behind the house of Rakesh, deceased and his family members had led to disputes between the appellants and the family of Rakesh, the deceased. The disputes were going on for some time and on 27th October, 1992, appellant No.1 allegedly went to the house of Rakesh, deceased, and asked him to settle the disputes amicably. At the in...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited Vs. Sudhir Vohra
Court: Delhi
1. The Petitioner, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited (DMRC), is aggrieved by an order dated 18th March 2010 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing the DMRC to supply to the Respondent information pertaining to the cantilevered bracket of Metro Pillar No. 67.2. The Respondent, who is an architect, made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) requiring the DMRC to give him "all structural drawings of both the pile foundation and the superstructure, including all steel reinforcement details, foundation details, engineering calculations and soil tests", pertaining to the cantilevered bracket of Metro Pillar No. 67 which collapsed on 12 th July, 2009 resulting in the death of six persons and injury to several others. By a letter dated 7th/10th July 2009 the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the DMRC declined the information sought on the ground that it was intellectual property of the DMRC and considerable cost and time had been ...
Tag this Judgment!Dlf Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Does the sale of a residential building against the payment in free foreign exchange amount to service for the purposes of the grant of a Duty Free Credit Entitlement (DFCE) Certificate (duty free scrip) under the Served From India Scheme (SFIS) announced as part of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-09 (FTP 2004-09)? This is the principal question that arises for consideration in the present writ petition, in which the communication dated 25/26th June 2008 issued by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade (JDGFT) answering the question in negative has been challenged by the Petitioner DLF Ltd. The other questions are whether the duty free scrip is a licence within the meaning of Section 2 (g) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act 1992 and whether the show cause notices dated 16th July 2007 sent to the Petitioner by the JDGFT proposing cancellation of the duty free scrips on the ground of misrepresentation of facts by the Petitioner are liable to be quashed?Factual Ba...
Tag this Judgment!