Delhi Court December 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 13 of about 211 results (0.021 seconds)Sandeep Lakra Vs. Rajender and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. This is a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 28.9.2007 alleged to have been executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. The agricultural land owned by defendant No.1 in village Kakrola was acquired by the Government. Thereafter, defendants No.1 & CS(OS)No.1518/2010 Page 1 of 7 2, under the scheme of Large Scale Acquisition Development & Disposal of Land in Delhi, framed by Government of NCT of Delhi, applied for allotment of an alternative plot measuring 80 sq.yds. The defendants offered to sell their right, title and interest in the plot, which Govt. of NCT of Delhi had recommended to be allotted to them, to the plaintiff, for a total consideration of Rs.22 lakhs. A part sale consideration of Rs.8 lakhs is alleged to have been paid by the plaintiff to them at the time of execution of the agreement. This was followed by a payment of Rs.5 lakhs on 15.07.2008 and yet another payment of Rs.5 lakhs on 8.12.2008.2. In a draw held on 5.2.2010, plot bearing No....
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Sarwan Singh Vs. Shri Balwinder Singh
Court: Delhi
1.This is a suit for recovery of Rs.22,40,250/-. The case of the plaintiff, who is a farmer-cum- teacher, is that the defendant approached him with a proposal for sending the boys to the foreign countries for study purposes. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.15.45 lakhs to the defendant to send his son to U.S.A. for study and CS(OS)No. 1450/2006 Page 1 of 10 employment. The payment was made on different dates between 16th September, 2002 and 12th December, 2003. Later, on realizing that the defendant had cheated him on the pretext of sending his son to U.S.A. for study and business purpose, the plaintiff requested the defendant to return back the money. The defendant thereupon issued two cheques one dated 20 th December, 2004 for Rs.5 lakhs and the other dated 26th May, 2005 for Rs.6 lakhs both drawn on Syndicate Bank, Rohini, Delhi. The cheques, when present to the bank, were dishonoured for want of sufficient fund in the account of the defendant. The plaintiff, therefore, has claimed th...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Ilyas Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. In this writ petition W.P No. 5685 of 1998 the appellant challenges the findings and sentence awarded by the Summary Court Martial of 23.12.1997, which was held by Lt. Col. R.K Myer, Officer Commanding, Administrative Battalion, Maratha Light Infantry Regimental Centre, Belgaum, Maharashtra. By this SCM, the appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and dismissal from service. On formation of this Tribunal, the said writ petition was transferred and is being disposed of by this judgment treating it as an appeal under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the SCM was held without jurisdiction and suffers from many legal infirmities. The officer conducting the trial was biased against the appellant and was, therefore, vindictive in his approach resulting in gross miscarriage of justice, and a disproportionately harsh and vindictive sentence. It was urged that by such arbitrary trial, the Commanding ...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Chandra Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. This petition has been preferred against the Summary Court Martial finding and sentence of 31.8.1995, wherein the appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and to be dismissed from service. On formation of this Tribunal, the writ petition was transferred and is being disposed of by this judgment treating it as an appeal under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007. 2. Before getting into the versions of both parties, it would only be appropriate to briefly recapitulate the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant was enrolled in the Rajput Regiment on 3.2.1988. On the night of 11/12.8.1995, while on guard duty, he had a heated altercation with Second Lt. I.V Raghu of his unit, for which necessary investigation and disciplinary action was taken, which culminated in the SCM of 31.8.1995, wherein he was awarded three months rigorous imprisonment and dismissal from service, for three charges as under: ARMY ACT SECTION 36(C) LEAVING HIS POS...
Tag this Judgment!Jamal Ahmed . Vs. the State .
Court: Delhi
1. These are two criminal appeals arising out of the judgment dated 29th May, 1999 and the Order on Sentence dated 31 st May, 1999 whereby both the appellants were convicted under section 366 of IPC read with section 34 thereof and under section 376 of IPC. Both the appellants were sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each or to undergo SI for 2 months each in default under section 366 of IPC read with section 34 thereof. They were further sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years each and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- each or to undergo SI for 3 months each in default under section 376 of IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The FIR in this case was lodged by deceased Prabhu Dayal, father of the prosecutrix. He alleged that he had two children one son and one daughter, the son being elder. He further stated that his daughter, who had gone to house of her friend in Noida on 24th November, 1989, informed her cousin Satish Anand on 25th November, 1989 ...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh and ors Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
The applicants/petitioners who are facing trial under Section 302 IPC have sought bail during pendency of the trial on the ground that the evidence recorded so far does not show involvement of the petitioners. I have perused the statement of PW-1 Shanti Devi and the statement would show that the claim made by the Counsel for the applicants that no evidence had come against the accused was totally false. Not only Shanti Devi supported the prosecution's case but even other witnesses also supported the case of the prosecution. The testimony of Shanti Devi cannot be doubted because she is one of the injured who received 25% burn injuries at the hands of the accused, while the deceased received 100% burn injuries and died. I find no force in the application. The bail application is hereby dismissed. ...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjiv JaIn . Vs. Satya Parkash and Bros.Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
1.These two cross-appeals are directed against the Order dated 20th May, 2009 passed by the Company Law Board disposing of Company CO.A.(SB) Nos.29 & 24/2009 Page 1 Petition No.49(ND)/2008 under Sections 397, 398, 237 and 399(4) read with Sections 402, 403 and 406 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short).2. Mr. Sanjiv Jain (hereinafter referred to as the appellant-purchaser, for short) was the petitioner before the Company Law Board and has raised the following questions of law in Company Appeal No. 29/2009 :-"i) Whether in the facts and circumstances detailed hereinabove, the Company Law Board was correct in disposing of the petition of the Appellant in terms of the impugned order and judgment dated 20.05.2009?ii) Whether the Company Law Board passed the impugned order & judgment dated 20.05.2009 without appreciating the documents produced by the Appellant in support of the petition for oppression & mismanagement, especially the share application form...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Mueed and ors. Vs. Hammad Ahmed and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. This is an application by the petitioners under Section 2(c) 11, 12 & 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 r/w Article 215 of the Constitution of India against Abdul Mueed, the respondent for initiating criminal contempt proceedings on account of allegedly filing of false affidavit in an appeal being FAO No. 262 of 2005. The said appeal was filed by an ex-employee of petitioner No.4 against dismissal of his petition under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Cont. Case (Crl.) No. 0009/2009 Page 1 of 272. The petitioners have contended that petitioner No.1 is the Chief Muttawalli of Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) Laboratories whereas the petitioners No. 2 & 3 are other Muttawallis. The respondent Hammad Ahmed is also stated to be a Muttawalli.3. The grievances of the petitioners are that an ex-employee of Hamdard Dawakhana (Waqf) Laboratories had filed a petition under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code to institute a suit against Hamdard Dawakhana (Waqf) Laboratories and again...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Manglani and anr Vs. M/S Reliance Industries
Court: Delhi
1. This appeal arises out of judgment/order passed by the Addl. District Judge Delhi dated 02.09.2005 whereby in a suit/plaint filed for declaration/cancellation of transfer deed, mandatory and permanent injunction filed by the appellant has been directed by the Addl. District Judge to be returned for presentation before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The impugned order has been passed on the basis of the findings returned on issue No.1 which was as follows "whether this Court has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit for the reasons stated in paragraph 2 & 3 of the written statement (preliminary objections)".2. The suit in question was filed by the appellant with the following prayers:"(a) That a decree for declaration declaring the plaintiffs to be the owners of the shares, details of which are given hereunder be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants:-Distinctive Record No. Certificate No. No. of Nos Shares --- 930251955 09195779 ...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Kumar Vyas and ors. Vs. Indian Road Construction Corporation Ltd ...
Court: Delhi
1.The appellants herein are the erstwhile employees of Indian Road Construction Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as IRCC, for short) the company under liquidation. They had on 30th June, 2000 applied under voluntary retirement scheme (hereinafter referred to as VRS, for short) circulated vide circular dated 31st May, 2000 and were paid retirement benefits stipulated therein on 30th Sept.,2000. Subsequently, petition for winding up of IRCC i.e. CP No. 14 of 2004 was filed in this Court on 20.01.2004 and on the request of the Central Government, Mr. Pran Konchady was appointed as a Liquidator. Advertisement/notice was published inviting claims against IRCC, the company in liquidation, on 18th June, 2004 and pursuant thereto the appellants filed their claims under Rule 148(2) of the Company (Court) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as Co.A(SB) No.20/2006 Page 1 the Rules, for short). The claim made by the appellants before the Liquidator was that they had not been paid reti...
Tag this Judgment!