Delhi Court December 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 14 of about 211 results (0.056 seconds)Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Seed Inspector
Court: Delhi
1. These two petitions have been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of complaints under Seeds Act, 1996 ("the Act" for short). Crl. MC 3357 & 3358/2010 Page 1 Of 52. The sole contention urged by the petitioner for seeking quashing of complaint under Seeds Act is that by the time prosecution was filed against the petitioner, the shelf- life of the seeds had expired and the petitioner did not get an opportunity in terms of Section 16 of the Seeds Act to exercise an option of sending sample to Central Seeds Laboratory. The contention of the petitioner is that this grossly prejudiced the right of the petitioner and, therefore, the complaint should be quashed.3. The few relevant dates are: On 12th January 2007, Seeds Inspector collected sample of coriander manufactured by the petitioner. The sample so collected was sent to Seeds Tested Laboratory, Barwalla of Govt. of Delhi on 15th January 2007. The report of analyst came from Seeds Testing Laboratory, Barwalla on 9th February 2007 in...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Karun Raj Narang Vs. Icici Bank Limited and ors.
Court: Delhi
The petitioner has sought setting aside the order dated 28th October, 2010 passed by Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal in Appeal WP(C) No.8042/2010 Page 1 of 8 No.392/2010 arising out of an order dated 28th September, 2010 in OA No. 248/1999 rejecting the prayers made by the petitioner to cross- examine all the witnesses of respondent/applicant Institution, who have filed the detailed affidavits and to modify the order of the Appellate Tribunal allowing cross-examination of Smt. Karobi Acharjee, Chief Manager, ICICI Bank Limited for 15 minutes only permit the petitioner to fully cross-examine the said witness and to allow cross examination of other witnesses who have given detailed affidavits in support of the contentions and pleas of respondent nos.1 to 3.Respondent No. 1 to 3, ICICI Bank Limited, M/s. Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) and IFCI Limited had filed the original application bearing No. 248/1999 under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial ...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Garg Vs. Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. This petition for contempt has been filed by the petitioner alleging violation of an injunction order dated 7th April 2008 passed by this Court in CM 3285 of 2008 in W.P. 1703 of 2008.2. Surprisingly, in the contempt petition, the petitioner has made Mr. Vikram Bakshi as respondent no.3 and Mr. Wadia Prakash as respondent no.4 and Mr. Vinod Suraha as respondent no.5. The petitioner has alleged commission of contempt against these respondents also. The petitioner had not made these persons as respondents in his writ petition and after going through the writ petition, it is evident that he deliberately did not make them respondents in order to keep them in dark. The list of dates filed by the petitioner in the writ petition shows that the petitioner was very well aware of the interests of Mr. Vikram Bakshi, Mr. Wadia Prakash and Mr. Vinod Suraha and that they were in Cont. Cas(C) No.720/2009 Page 1 Of 2 litigation with other respondents. His not making these persons as parties to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Varoon @ Babloo Vs. State
Court: Delhi
This application has been made by the applicant seeking bail on the ground that no specific role has been assigned to accused/applicant in commission of offence and the co-accused has already been granted bail. However, perusal of record would show that the applicant was one of the main assailants/accused. It was the 'applicant' who along with Shivam, Mukesh and Rajesh sat in front of the house of injured persons and it was the ''applicant' who started giving taunting remarks and making gestures to complainant Kaushalya on whose statement FIR was recorded. When he was forbidden by complainant Kaushalya the applicant along with his three friends went to the house of Kaushalya. He was armed with a knife while Bail Application No. 1412/2010 Page 1 of 2 others were armed with rod, hockey stick, danda and belts and they indiscriminately started assaulting the family members. The applicant made an attempt to stab Shiv Kumar. This assault of applicant was warded off by Kaushalya on her left h...
Tag this Judgment!In the Matter Of: Ex L/Nk S.K Tiwari Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The applicant had filed WP (C) 7998/2009 in the Honble Delhi High Court and the same was transferred to this tribunal on 16/11/2009. The applicant has prayed the quashing of release of his medical board proceedings held on 07/09/2007 and his order of his discharge dated 30/09/2007 (Annexure P-8) and prayed that he be reinstated in DSC with all consequential benefits. 2. The applicant states that he was enrolled in the DSC on 02/09/1997 and subsequently promoted L/Nk. His terms of engagement were for 10 years for initial period, extendable by 05 years. The applicant states that this extension was granted to him from 02/09/2007 to 01/09/2012. 3. The applicant was downgraded to low medical category (P-2) on 04/08/2006 for obesity. He claims that subsequently he reduced his weight to acceptable 83 Kilos. During his medical examination on 20/07/2007 he was medically examined at MH, Kirkee by Lt Col Lalit Maudar at the MI Room and his weight in the document is recorded as 83 kilos (Anne...
Tag this Judgment!S.K Sharma Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Challenge in this appeal is against the order dated 6.9.2006, whereby the appellant was held guilty of the offences under Sections 354, 509 of the Indian Penal Code read in conjunction with Navy Act Section 77(2) and Navy Act Section 14 and sentenced to be (i) dismissed from service; (ii) reduced to ranks; and (iii) deprived of third, second and first good conduct batch. Simultaneously, prayer is also made to reinstate him in service to the original rank and with all three GCBs with all consequential benefits. 2. The jurisdiction of this Tribunal has been invoked on the basis of the order passed by the Chief of Naval Staff as part of the cause of action arose here in Delhi. The appellant had been pursuing the remedy for the grant of pensionary benefits, which were denied to him, and, therefore, this appeal is now said to be well within limitation. Several other grounds have also been taken for assailing the decision of the Chief of Naval Staff. 3. At this stage of the admission of...
Tag this Judgment!Gnr. Mangelal Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. This writ petition has been brought by the appellant contesting the order of 21.12.1995 passed by lt. Col. V.V Raghavan, Commanding Officer, 98 Field Regiment, wherein the appellant was sentenced 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. In order to appreciate the facts of the case, a brief narration of the circumstances is warranted. The appellant and Gnr. Ram Kumar were both posted in 98 Field Regiment on 23.11.1995 on the date of occurrence of the incident. Both, Gnr. Ram Kumar and the appellant, were on duty in an insurgency area at that point of time i.e. 23.11.1995. Both these soldiers, while allegedly on patrolling duty, are alleged to have taken three girls of Village Amlangbra, viz. Miss Archana Nunisa, Miss Polja Nunisa and Miss Deepali Nunisa, to an isolated spot in the jungle on the pretext of ...
Tag this Judgment!D.P Tripathy Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. In these two writ petitions, the appellant seeks quashing of the District Court Martial proceedings and thereafter entitlement to pension and disability pension. Since similar facts and circumstances arise in these cases, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. On formation of this Tribunal, these writ petitions were transferred and are treated as appeals under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007. 2. The appellant contends that he is a disabled and mentally deranged airman who has served the Air Force for over 13 years, during which he has rendered exemplary, dedicated and sincere service to the Air Force and to the nation and just when he would have been entitled to pension, he has been court martialled and dismissed from service, thus denying him his judicious dues. The appellant seeks to quash the DCM proceedings of 14.5.1999 as also grant of disability pension consisting of both elements, i.e. service as well as disability element with effect from 30.6....
Tag this Judgment!Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The challenge in this petition is directed against the court martial proceedings conducted from 1.11.1990 to 15.3.1991 whereby the petitioner was held guilty for the offences under Sections 60(a), 54(2), 77(2), 41(2), 48(a) and 74 of the Navy Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty four calendar months, to be dismissed from Naval service and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, with a default clause of rigorous imprisonment for six more calendar months. On judicial review, Charge No. 20 was found not to have been established against the appellant and he was exonerated of that charge and the sentence was modified to the term already undergone. The authority even remitted the fine. There remains only the sentence of dismissal from service. On formation of the Armed Forces Tribunal, the writ petition was transferred to this Bench for disposal and was treated as an appeal under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007. 2. It is contended that the appellant was no...
Tag this Judgment!Kanshi Ram Verma Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.The short question which arises for decision in the presentappeal is whether the driver of a motor vehicle, having pleaded guilty to the charge of rash and negligent driving under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, can claim exoneration from the charge of rash and FAO NO. 705/2002 Page 1 of 12 negligent driving in the Motor Accident Claims Petition filed by the injured-claimant.2. Briefly delineated the case of the appellant is that on 7th July, 1994 at about 6.45 p.m. he was driving his two-wheeler scooter no. DAB-7801 when a CRPF truck No. DL-1L-A-2720, driven rashly and negligently by the respondent no.3, came from the opposite direction and hit his scooter near Chaburja Marg, Malka Ganj, resulting in his sustaining injuries as detailed in the claim petition. The respondents no.1 and 2, who are the owners of the CRPF vehicle in question, have given an entirely different version in their written statement and their stand is that the respondent no.3 was driving ...
Tag this Judgment!