Delhi Court March 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 14 of about 197 results (0.020 seconds)Akram @ Chiti Vs. State
Court: Delhi
S.L. Bhayana, J.1. By this order I shall dispose of the appeal filed by the appellant Under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment passed by learned ASJ, Karkardooma, Delhi dated 29th April 2009 and order on sentence dated 30th April 2009 wherein learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable Under Section 392 IPC read with Section 397 IPC. The appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of seven years for the offence punishable Under Section 392 IPC read with Section 397 IPC and also to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of the payment of fine he shall further to undergo SI for two months for the said offence.2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 19.12.2004 the complainant Neena Ahuja made a report to the police that she had gone to board a bus route No. 720 from Hans apartment. She boarded the bus No. DL-1PB-1810. After 2/3 minutes one boy entered into the bus and he came near her. He took out a knife and put the open knife on ...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Sunder Malhotra Vs. National Small Scale Industries Corp. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 16th April, 2009 whereby an application of the petitioner for waiving of cost was dismissed.2. An application of the petitioner under Order IX Rule 7 CPC praying for setting aside ex-parte order dated 26th February, 2007 was allowed by the trial court, subject to cost of Rs. 20,000/-. The petitioner did not pay cost and wanted to file written statement. The trial court imposed additional cost of Rs. 5,000/- and the total cost became Rs. 25,000/- and it observed that the payment of cost would be a condition precedent to filing of written statement. The petitioner argued before the trial court that the trial court had power to impose a maximum cost of Rs. 3,000/-. The trial court considered this argument and observed that the limit of Rs. 3,000/- was there only where costs were imposed under Section 35A CPC. However, there was no limit of Rs. 3,000/- where cost was imposed under Section 35B CPC. Since...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Gurmeet Singh Chopra Vs. Smt. Taruna Chopra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 25th November 2009 whereby the learned trial court refused the petitioner to lead additional evidence to prove the Will dated 18th September 1998. It is submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner was entitled to the estate of the deceased on the basis of the Will left behind by the deceased. The petitioner was impleaded as legal heirs on the basis of the Will and the petitioner, therefore, has a right to prove the Will. The learned trial court observed that Will could not be a subject matter of the suit filed by the deceased/plaintiff in whose place defendant No. 3 was brought on record as an LR. Therefore, no additional evidence to prove the Will can be allowed.2. It is submitted by the petitioner that no probate of the Will was required, therefore, he could lead evidence to prove the Will before the Civil Court. He relied upon Santosh Kakkar and Ors. v. Ram Prasad and Ors. 1998 I AD (Delhi) 9...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant responded to the last question: Why this case against you and why the P.Ws have deposed against you? By answering:It is a false case. On that day, I was going from the side. Jaswant was with me. Two boys attacked us i.e. me and Jaswant. One of them had caught hold of me. He had caused injuries on my person. In the meantime, one police official had come there. The person whom I had caught, in the mean time, had succeeded in fleeing away. The other boy had been apprehended by the police official. However, that boy had succeeded in getting himself released from the clutches of the police officials. He had also fled away. I asked the police official to catch that boy but the police official did not catch him. Thereafter, this case was foisted on me.2. The appellant claims that two boys attacked him and his friend Jaswant (the deceased) and that he i.e. the appellant received injuries. Let us note at the outset th...
Tag this Judgment!Piyush Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Swami Nath Shanker
Court: Delhi
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By way of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 30th November 2009 passed by learned ADJ whereby an application of the petitioner seeking leave to defend was dismissed.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner floated a project of developing a colony and invited persons to show their interest in booking plots in the colony to be developed. The application forms for this purpose were issued to different persons including respondent Swami Nath Shanker, an NRI. The registration form supplied by the petitioner to respondent for registration of plots read as under:(a) That your offer of Provisional allotment of a residential plot in your Palwan - Faridabad Township shall be made to me/ us with in approx. 6 (six) months from the date of registration with you.(b) That the said advance made by me/ us would be adjusted against the Provisional allotment...
Tag this Judgment!Jivendra Gautam Vs. Veena Gautam
Court: Delhi
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this contempt petition, the petitioner has prayed for taking action against the respondent who is his wife for non compliance of the order dated 30th May, 2008 passed by this Court.2. Vide order dated 30th May, 2008, this Court had disposed of an appeal giving following directions:Accordingly, applicant/respondent No. 1 (the father of the child and respondent No. 1's father), shall be permitted to meet the child at Bhopal where the child is currently staying and studying. The meeting shall take place in the Income Tax Guest House. These two persons shall be permitted to meet the child on every Sunday from 10 am to 6 pm during the summer vacations. The appellant/wife and her father shall also be at liberty to be there at the time when the meeting takes place.3. It is submitted by the petitioner that in accordance with the above order of this Court, he had been continuously going to meet the child at Bhopal so as to interact with the child and to see that th...
Tag this Judgment!Gurdev Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
S.L. Bhayana, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 2.7.2007 whereby first appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was driving a truck No. HR 38 BG 0127 in a rash and negligent manner and while so driving at about 7.45 a.m. in front of Om Can Handicarfts, Mehrauli Mahipalpur Road, Masood Pur, New Delhi, he hit against master Rinku, aged about 7 years who was crossing the road at that time. Both the legs of Rinku got damaged in the said accident. His right leg was amputated below the knee and the other leg was also damaged which had to be amputated later on. Charge Under Section 279/338 IPC was framed against the accused on 25.5.1999 to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses.3. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses. PW-6, Parvesh Massi, is the star witness of the prosecu...
Tag this Judgment!Denel (Proprietary) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. The aforesaid three petitions are being disposed of by this common order inasmuch as the facts of the three cases are more or less similar. Wherever the need arises to refer to a difference in an issue or fact for any individual case, then, the same would be adverted to. These petitions have been filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking restraint against the invocation of the Bank Guarantees totalling to an amount of approx. USD 6,110,038 by the respondent No. 1. The Bank Guarantees are given by the banks which have been arrayed as other respondents.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was awarded various contracts by the respondent No. 1/Union of India for supply of certain defence equipments such as AMR Rifles and ammunition. In pursuance of the requirements of these contracts, the petitioner gave two types of Bank Guarantees. The Bank Guarantees are Warranty Bank Guarantees and Performance Bank G...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Dharampal Arora Vs. Share Tips,
Court: Delhi
Indermeet Kaur, J.1. Plaintiff Dharampal Arora has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 50,00,000/. Defendant No. 2 Ashok Mehta and defendant No. 3 wife of Ashok Mehta are both partners of defendant No. 1 M/s Share Tips, a partnership firm comprising of defendants No. 2 and 3.2. Defendants were dealing in sale purchase of shares from 1989 till 1992. Deliveries were being made through the plaintiff after settling the money transactions with him. Defendants were also dealing in forward trading. Business with the plaintiff was either through oral communication on telephone and sometimes by meetings in the office of the plaintiff.3. Plaintiff is a member of the Delhi Stock Exchange since 1964. He was helping the defendants in their share business. Parties had opened mutual current account in view of the reciprocal dealings and transactions between them. They had good business relations. On 23.8.1991 accounts between the parties finally stood settled and a cheque for Rs. 1,03,188/- wa...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar and ors. Vs. A.D. Kumar and ors. Through Lrs.
Court: Delhi
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner against an order dated 22nd April, 2006 whereby the learned Civil Judge dismissed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for passing a decree of dismissal of the suit on the basis of admissions made by the plaintiff (respondent herein) Dr. B.D. Kumar (since deceased, now being represented by his Lrs).2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the present petition are that Dr. B.D. Kumar filed a suit for declaration with a prayer that he should be declared exclusive owner and in possession of a plot bearing number 6 and 7, in Block No. 6, Industrial Area, Kirti Nagar, Delhi. His contention was that vide a sale deed dated 10th June, 1960, he purchased these plots and the mutation of the plot was done in his name. After purchasing these plots, plaintiff with his brother and family members decided to start a family business in partnership with ...
Tag this Judgment!