Delhi Court December 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 15 of about 211 results (0.019 seconds)Mr. Mathew Mavely Vs. M/S. A-one Projects Ltd
Court: Delhi
1. C.A.No.393/2007 has been filed by Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank Limited for de-sealing of the property bearing number F-31, Site-B, Surajpur Industrial Area, Greater Noida, U.P. It is stated that this property is mortgaged with the said bank.2. C.A.No.699/2007 has been filed by the Official Liquidator for recall of the order dated 7th October, 2005. It is stated in the application that the Official Liquidator had visited the factory premises mentioned above on 20th January, 2000 and had put three locks. Thereafter, valuer was appointed by the Court for valuation of land, plant and machinery. It is stated that Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank Limited had responded to an advertisement stating that an amount of Rs.5,51,00,000/- was due and payable to them by the respondent company. It is stated that after the order dated 7th October, 2005, the Official Liquidator had written notices to the ex-directors of the respondent company but no one had come forward. Accordingly, it is sub...
Tag this Judgment!Aziz Ahmed and ors. Vs. Sakina Begum
Court: Delhi
1. By way of this application it is contended that appellant no.1 has expired on 13.9.2006; his legal heirs have not been brought on record; appeal stands abated. Prayer for abatement has been made.2. Reply filed has opposed the application. It is not in dispute that appellant no.1 has died and admittedly his legal representatives have not been brought on record within the prescribed period of limitation.3. Appellant has submitted that the appeal has abated only qua legal representatives of appellant no.1 in terms of Order 22 Rule 3 (ii) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appeal has not abated in toto.RSA No.129/2002 Page 1 of 64. Learned counsel for the respondents/applicants has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1973 SC 204 Babu Sukhram Singh vs. Ram Dular Singh & Ors. It is submitted that the appeal has abated in Toto as it was a joint claim which was made by the plaintiffs against all the defendants of whom one such defendant has died. Reliance h...
Tag this Judgment!Joginder Sansanwal Vs. State and ors
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. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 9th March, 2010 passed by learned MM, New Delhi whereby he dismissed a complaint of the petitioner holding that no offence against the accused persons was made out.2. A perusal of complaint and the order of the learned MM would show that as per the allegations of the petitioner, the petitioner was induced into horse racing and betting by the respondent no.2 and the petitioner lost considerable amount in racecourse and in purchasing a horse. The learned trial court came to conclusion that giving advice to put bet on horse racing does not amount to cheating. I consider that the learned trial court rightly came to conclusion that no offence of cheating was made out in this case. If the Crl. ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Kranti Arora . Vs. M/S Birla Vxl Ltd.
Court: Delhi
1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for possession and recovery of damages. The property in issue of which possession is sought is a flat bearing No. 12, situate at 3-4, South End Lane, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the flat). The plaintiff has claimed ownership of the flat. It is the plaintiffs case that the defendant being a trespasser, has no legal right to claim the occupation of the flat and hence, possession ought to be given to him. It would be pertinent to note here that the issues famed with regard to ownership of the flat have not been pressed by the plaintiff in view of the stand taken by the defendant that the plaintiff is the land lord. I will advert to the orders passed in this regard in the later part of my judgment.1.1. However, consequential relief of damages is sought for three years spanning a period, commencing from May, 1995 and ending with May, 1998. Damages are sought at the rate of Rs 85,000/- per month. Total damages claimed are a sum of Rs 30,60,0...
Tag this Judgment!Crazypricing Online Services Private Limited . Vs. Victor Leasing Limi ...
Court: Delhi
1. This joint application under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act, for short) has been filed by Crazy pricing Online Services Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Transferor Company, for short) and Victor Leasing Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Transferee Company, for short) in respect of scheme of amalgamation, which has been enclosed as Annexure-P-20 to this application.2. Along with the application, the transferor company and the transferee company have enclosed copy of their Memorandum and Articles of Association and their audited balance sheets for the year ending 31st March, 2009 and 31st March, 2010. In the application, details with regard to authorized, subscribed and paid up share capital of the transferor company and the transferee company have been stated. Board of Directors of the Transferor Company and the Transferee Company have passed Resolutions approving the proposed scheme of amalgamation. Copy of the Board Resolutions have been pl...
Tag this Judgment!Mangrove (India) Household Private Limited .;mangrove International Pr ...
Court: Delhi
1. This joint application under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act, for short) has been filed by Mangrove (India) Household Private Limited and Mangrove International Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Transferor Company Nos. 1 and 2 respectively) and Miracle Leasing and Finance Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Transferee Company) in respect of scheme of amalgamation, which has been enclosed as Annexure-P-29 to the application.2. Along with the application, the two transferor companies and the transferee company have enclosed copy of their Memorandum and Articles of Association and their audited balance sheets as on 31st March, 2009 and 31st March, 2010. They have also enclosed copy of the Resolutions passed by the Board of Directors of the two transferor companies and the transferee company approving the proposed scheme of amalgamation. In the application, details with regard to date of incorporation, authorized, subscribed and paid up share capita...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Kamlesh Kumar and anr.
Court: Delhi
This is an application by the appellant/applicant seeking condonation of delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal on the ground that the impugned judgment was pronounced on 28th January, 2010 and considerable time was taken in procuring the certified copy of the judgment.The applicant has given the details as to who has considered the file to decide whether a petition for leave to appeal is to be filed or not. Crl. LP No. 304/2010 Page 1 of 15 The applicant has relied on Collector of Land Acquisition v. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107 and State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao, 2005 (3) SCC 752 holding that sufficient cause should be considered with pragmatism in justice oriented approach rather than a technical defection of sufficient causes for explaining every days delay having regard to considerable delay of procedural red tape in the decision making process of the government, certain amount of latitude is permissible and should be given. The applicant has contended that the State Governme...
Tag this Judgment!Vishal @ Chinki Vs. State .
Court: Delhi
1.This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 9th August, 2010 whereby the appellant was convicted by the trial Court under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 and order on sentence whereby he was sentenced to undergo RI for 03 years and fine of Rs.8,000/-.2. The case against the appellant is that on 17 th June, 2006 at about 8.30 pm he along with his other associates stopped Ravi and his friend Vicky near the railway line and assaulted both of them with knife. The appellant was known to the injured from before. Knife blows were given on chest of Ravi and on the chest and belly of Vicky. After giving knife blows the appellant ran away with his friends. The cause of giving knife blows is stated Crl. Appeal No. 1191/2010 Page 1 of 5 to be a previous quarrel that had taken place between the appellant and cousin brother of injured, on occasion of Diwali.3. Both the injured deposed before the trial Court in respect of the incident on the same lines as was the complaint made t...
Tag this Judgment!Aquarius Securities Private Limited .Vs. Combitic Global Caplet Privat ...
Court: Delhi
1. This joint application under Sections 391, 392 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act, for short) has been filed by Aquarius Securities Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Demerged Company, for short) and Combitic Global Caplet Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Resultant Company, for short) in respect of scheme of arrangement enclosed as Annexure-E to this application.2. Along with the application, copy of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Demerged Company and the Resultant Company and their last audited balance sheets for the year ending 31 st March, 2010 have been enclosed. Board of Directors of the Demerged Company and the Resultant Company have passed Resolutions approving the proposed scheme of arrangement.3. The Demerged Company has two shareholders as per Annexure-C and the said shareholders have given their consent/no objection certificates to the proposed scheme of arrangement enclosed at pages 101 and 102. It is stated that the De...
Tag this Judgment!Uoi and ors. Vs. Duli Chand
Court: Delhi
1. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 25.3.2009, OA No.580/2008 filed by the respondent Duli Chand has been allowed with a direction that the sealed cover containing the recommendation pertaining to the petitioner for promotion to the post of Additional Commissioner be opened and recommendation implemented. It has been held that the penalty order dated 2.5.2003 has to be given effect from said date.2. Vide order dated 2.5.2003 the Disciplinary Authority inflicted upon the respondent the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect which was quashed by the Tribunal when respondent filed OA WP(C) No.985/2010 Page 1 of 8 No.1573/2003. Tribunal's order was upheld by the High Court but was reversed by the Supreme Court when CA No.2168/2006 was disposed of by the Supreme Court on 21.4.2006 and the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was restored. It may be noted that before the penalty could be implemented, the respondent obtained a stay from the Tribu...
Tag this Judgment!