Delhi Court December 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 5 of about 211 results (0.025 seconds)State Vs. Sukhlal
Court: Delhi
This is an application by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing the petition seeking leave to appeal. The applicant has contended that the copy of the judgment dated 25th March, 2010 was ready on 16th April, 2010 and on receipt of the copy, the same was given to the legal department for its opinion and thereafter it was considered at various levels. The record was finally received by the counsel for the appellant on 20th October, 2010. The counsel for the appellant also took time to go through the records and prepare petition seeking leave to appeal and by the time, the petition seeking leave to appeal was filed, the delay of 161 days had already taken place. The applicant has contended that delay of 161 days is neither intentional nor deliberate and grave loss, irreparable harm and injury shall occasion if the delay of 161 days is not condoned. The applicant has relied on Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Mst. Katiji and Ors., (1987) 2 SCC 107 and State...
Tag this Judgment!S Darshan Singh Vs. State and ors
Court: Delhi
1. The short point involved in this matter is as to whether the order as passed by the Addl. District Judge dated 29.01.2010 needs correction. The said order has been passed by the Addl. District Judge while granting probate/ letters of administration in relation to an unregistered Will dated 22.08.2005 left by late Shri Sant Prakash Singh Ahuja bequeathing movable and immovable property in favour of Shri Darshan Singh, the appellant and other respondents in equal shares. The immovable property bequeathed by the deceased is House No. 22/69 Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.2. As per the Will the deceased while referring to all the six inheritors stated as follows:"I hereby device/ give bequeathed the above said house no. 22/69, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi in equal shares to my above named nephews and nieces, i.e. the sons and daughters of my real and only sister late Smt. Dalip Kaur. They can live and enjoy the said property and if not possible they can sell the property and distribute the proceeds ...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Kumar Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
1. This criminal revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 16th November 2010 whereby the conviction of the petitioner under Section 279 and 304A IPC was upheld by the first appellate court.2. The basic ground for revision is that the trial court did not appreciate the evidence of prosecution witnesses and convicted the accused/ petitioner. The material witness namely the rickshaw puller whose rickshaw was hit by the fire brigade vehicle number DEG-2944 under the wheels driven by the petitioner was not produced. A plea is also taken that the petitioner was not the driver of the vehicle.3. It is settled position of law that a revision cannot be treated as a second appeal and the court can interfere with the order only in revision if the court below has committed some grave irregularity and illegality or exceeded the jurisdiction or the judgment was delivered without evidence. In the present case, the petitioner was driving a government vehicle and...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Nu Tech Security Printers Vs. M/S Santhi Agency and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. This is a suit for recovery of `20,29,634.55. Defendant No.2 is a partner of defendant No.1, whereas defendants No. 5 and 6 are partners of defendants No. 3 and 4. Defendants No. 3 and 4 are also alleged to be the unit of defendant No.7, wholly owned by it. It is alleged in the plaint that Government of Nagaland appointed defendant No.3 as the Organizing Agent of its State sponsored lotteries and defendants No. 3 to 7 were appointed as the selling agents for defendants No.3 for such lotteries. It is further alleged that defendants No. 3 to 7, in the name of defendant No.3, negotiated with the plaintiff for printing of lottery tickets and as per instructions of the sponsorer of the lotteries, defendant No.3 got the tickets printed from the plaintiff. On the request of defendant No.3, tickets were delivered by the plaintiff to defendant No.1 at its Delhi office and the bills for printing were also raised in the name of defendant No.1. Payments against the bills, however, were received...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Nilima Ghosh Vs. Harjeet Kaur and ors
Court: Delhi
The bone of contention between the parties to the appeal is a property at D-713, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi.It all started in the year 1988 with respondent No.1 before me filing a suit for specific performance against the appellant and three others, initially in this Court which was later transferred to the Court of an Additional District Judge after the pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court was enhanced. Basing her case on two agreements dated February 21, 1985 and September 07, 1987, respondent No.1 alleged that the appellant had agreed to sell the aforementioned property to her for a total consideration of ` 2,00,000/- and that even after having received the full sale consideration, she refused to execute the sale deed in her favour.The learned Additional District Judge who heard the suit, vide judgment dated February 12, 1999 held in favour of respondent No.1 and consequently passed a decree against the appellant for specific performance of the agreement dated September 07, 1987...
Tag this Judgment!Joyna John Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. The present appeal under section 299/384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is directed against the order dated 02.07.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the petition of the appellant filed under Section 276/279 of the Indian Succession Act seeking probate in respect of the Will dated 05.11.1997 executed by Sh.Luke John in Probate Case No. 256/06/05 titled as "Smt.Joyna John v. The State and Ors."2. Briefly stating, the facts giving rise to filing of the present appeal are that late Sh. Lukhe John had executed a Will dated 05.11.1997 in respect of the immovable property i.e. B-43, DTC Colony, Hari Nagar, New Delhi and other movable properties/assets mentioned in schedule A and expired on 2.3.2003 leaving behind his three daughters i.e. the appellant herself and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and one son, namely, Ibneazer John, respondent No.4. Notice of the petition was issued to the State through Collector and also to the legal heirs o...
Tag this Judgment!Panchvati Estates Private Limited . Vs. Super Mart Two Property Manage ...
Court: Delhi
1. This joint application under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act, for short) has been filed by Panchvati Estates Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferor company) and Super Mart Two Property Management Services Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferee company) in respect of scheme of amalgamation, which has been enclosed as Annexure-A-9 to this application.2. The registered office of the transferor company and the transferee company are located within the National Capital Territory of Delhi.3. Along with the application, the transferor company and the transferee company have filed copy of their Memorandum and Articles of Association, last audited balance sheets as well as Resolutions passed by the Board of Directors approving the proposed scheme of amalgamation.4. The transferor company has 2 equity shareholders, 1 equity A shareholder without any voting right and 1 preference shareholder as per the list enclosed at page 231. The s...
Tag this Judgment!SachIn Suneja Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C the petitioner has assailed an order dated 3rd September 2010 whereby an application under Section 263(g) Cr.P.C of the petitioner was dismissed He has also sought quashing of the criminal complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act made by the complainant.2. After summoning order of learned MM, the petitioner on a complaint of the respondent/ complainant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of cheque, the petitioner made an application under Section 263(g) of Cr.P.C stating therein that the payment of the cheque was stopped by him and it was not dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds. The cheques in question were issued as a security and were misused by the complainant. The other defence taken was that the notice issued by the complainant was beyond the period of limitation. The learned trial court considered the application of the petitioner and found that the evidence in the case was going ...
Tag this Judgment!Pankaj Sood Vs. State
Court: Delhi
1. This application for grant of anticipatory bail has been moved by the petitioner/ applicant for grant of anticipatory bail who was booked under Section 308 of IPC. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and it was complainant who was in drunken condition and the present FIR was counterblast to the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 8th August 2010 against the complainant.2. The incident in which the accused/ petitioner is involved seems to be road-rage incident. The vehicle of the complainant dashed against petitioner's car. As per the allegations, the petitioner/applicant thereafter started abusing the complainant and when complainant tried to stop him, the accused took out a beer bottle from his car, broke it and hit the complainant with it on his face, head, neck, shoulder resulting into serious injuries on his person. A perusal of MLC would show that the injuries on the person of complainant were grievous, sharp with ragged margins...
Tag this Judgment!North East Pure Drinks Private Ltd. Vs. Varun Beverages (international ...
Court: Delhi
1. This joint application under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act, for short) in respect of scheme of amalgamation, annexure A-3 has been filed by North East Pure Drinks Private Limited (Transferor Company) and Varun Beverages (International) Limited (Transferee Company).2. Registered office of the transferor company and the transferee company are located within the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The transferor company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the transferee company. Along with the application, the transferor company and the transferee company have enclosed copy of their Memorandum and Articles of Association, their latest audited balance sheets as on 31st March, 2010 and the resolutions passed by the Board of Directors of the two companies approving the proposed scheme of amalgamation.3. The transferor company has 2 shareholders, who have given their consents/no objection certificates to the proposed scheme of amalgamation. The transferor company has 6 ...
Tag this Judgment!