Delhi Court April 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 1 of about 223 results (0.022 seconds)Suken Mandal Vs. the State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 07.05.2005, the appellant has been convicted for the offence of having murdered his wife Ms. Alpana Goswami in the intervening night of 14th and 15th May, 2003 at her matrimonial house RZ B-192, Gali No. 16, Tuglakabad Extension.2. The reasoning of the learned trial Judge has to be found in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the impugned decision which read as under:25. I have gone through the entire record including the evidence adduced oral and documentary on behalf of the prosecution and heard ld. APP for the state and ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused with patience at length. In this case there is no direct evidence of any eye witness. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is evidence of frequent quarrel between the accused and the deceased on account of keeping two sons of deceased namely Sibas Goswami and Gadhadhar Goswami with the deceased besides the last seen evidence of PW-5 and PW6. PW5 Sibas Goswami deposed c...
Tag this Judgment!Gas Authority of India Ltd. Vs. thermax Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Manmohan, J.1. Present petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1996') challenging the arbitral Award dated 30th March, 2002 passed by Mr. V. Selvaraj, Sole Arbitrator.2. Relevant facts of the case have been succinctly set out in the impugned Award. For the purposes of present petition, it would suffice to observe that petitioner-objector and respondent-claimant had entered into a contract for installation and commissioning of Dowtherm Vapouriser at LLDPE Plant, Pata. The said plant was to be delivered within thirteen months. Since in the present case, petitioner-objector issued Fax of Intent on 9th August, 1995, the plant was to be delivered by September, 1996. However, the plant was actually completed and delivered on 31st March, 1999. Consequently, admittedly there is a delay of thirty months in completion of the contract. The learned Arbitrator in the impugned Award has, however, allowed petitioner-obje...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Radhika Creation
Court: Delhi
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The order dated 08.02.2008 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in IT(SS) 349/Del/2004 pertaining to the block period 01.04.1990 to 17.10.2000 is the subject matter of the present appeal preferred by the revenue. The revenue has proposed the following questions, which, according to it, are substantial questions of law and require the consideration of this Court:a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal erred in deleting the additions of Rs. 44,38,997/- in spite of admission of the assessee that it was not in a position to produce vouchers or authenticate the genuineness of expenses?b) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that Section 69C is not applicable to block assessment?c) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal misconstrued the provisions of Section 158BB(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?d) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal erred in allowing set off interest and bank charg...
Tag this Judgment!Veena Arora Vs. Devinder Kumar Mahndru
Court: Delhi
Aruna Suresh, J.IA No. 4360/2006 (under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC)1. Plaintiff has filed this application seeking temporary injunction against the defendant for restraining him from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from second floor roof with terrace rights of the suit property and also restraining him, his servants, agents, assignees, representatives, attorneys or any other person acting on his behalf from creating any third party interest in the second floor roof with terrace rights of the suit property till pendency of the suit.2. In brief, case of the plaintiff is that suit premises i.e. M-31, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi was initially owned by one Shri Ashok Narang and Smt. Geeta Narang. The said two persons sold ground floor of the said premises to one Shri Devinder Mahna, first floor to Shri Gagandeep and second floor to Shri Devinder Kumar Mahindru, the defendant for a consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/- each vide separate Sale Deeds dated 31st March, 2005. Later on all aforesaid t...
Tag this Judgment!international Print-o-pac Limited Vs. Maa Communication Bozell (P) Ltd ...
Court: Delhi
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 7th November, 2008 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 3,23,175/- was dismissed.2. The case of the plaintiff-Company (the appellant herein), as it emerges from the plaint, is that it is engaged in the business of printers and photolithographers amongst other business and has been carrying out the printing jobs as per the orders and specifications of the defendant (the respondent herein), for which bills were regularly raised against the defendant. It is alleged that the defendant-company was making payment 'on account' and, as such there was a running account between the parties and that as per the books of accounts of the plaintiff-company, duly maintained and audited in the ordinary course of business, the defendant-company has not cleared the dues of the plaintiff-company to the extent of Rs. 2,27,588.81. It is further alleged that the defendant has not cleared the aforesaid dues inspite of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Avtar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
A.K. Sikri, J.1. This appeal arises out of the conviction of the appellant Ram Avtar under Sections 302 and 404 Indian Penal Code, 1860 vide judgment dated 10.01.97 passed by Ld. Additional Session Judge. Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. The sentence imposed under Section 404 IPC is to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Both the sentences are to run concurrently.2. Succinctly stated, the prosecution's version of the story is that on 31.08.93 one PCR van received the information that one lady had committed suicide by hanging herself in Sonia Vihar. HC Subhash Kumar, the in-charge of the PCR van R-31, forwarded this informatio...
Tag this Judgment!Saketh India Limited Vs. W. Diamond India Limited
Court: Delhi
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Appellant, Saketh India Limited, assails the impugned Order of the learned Single Judge passed on 24.8.2 009, whereby two Applications preferred by the Appellant/Defendant were dismissed and the Suit filed under Order XXXVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' for short) for the recovery of mesne profits for the sum of Rupees 31,30,153/- together with interest and costs was decreed. In the first Application, IA No. 1171/2006, the Appellant/Defendant prayed for condonation of delay in entering appearance (that is filing the Address Form). In the second Application, IA No. 1170/2006, the Appellant/Defendant sought the rejection of the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC on the ground that it had been declared a Sick Industrial Unit in terms of Section 3(1)(o) of Sick Industrial Companies (special Provisions) Act, 1985 ('SICA' for short). Before us, the only aspect that has been argued is that SICA places a complete prohibition on all judicial pr...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Islam Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. With reference to the testimony of Kumari Gulnar aged 10 years when she deposed in Court on 24.3.2005 and was aged about 8 1/2 years when the crime took place on 13.10.2003, the learned Trial Judge has held that the same establishes that the deceased Gulfasha aged 12-13 years was in the company of the appellant at around 7:30 PM; with reference to the fact that the ball Ex.P-1 proved to be that of Gulfasha in view of the testimony of her father Ihlal Ahmed PW-1 was recovered from the jhuggi of the appellant the learned Trial Judge has held that the same establishes that Gulfasha was inside the jhuggi of the appellant; with reference to the fact that after he was apprehended the appellant made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-8/A admitting to having raped and then murdered Gulfasha and while doing said act his shirt and lungi got stained with blood which were got recovered by the appellant as entered in the memo Ex.PW-8/C on which, as per FSL report Ex.PW-15/G, only ...
Tag this Judgment!Swadeshi Cement Limited Vs. Asset Care Enterprises Limited
Court: Delhi
A.K. Pathak, J.1. Petitioner has filed this Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying therein that the Order dated 12th October, 2009 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellate Tribunal') in Appeal No. 238/2009 be quashed.2. It appears that a sum of Rs. 5284.08 lakhs was due and payable by the Appellant to Respondent No. 2 as on 30th September, 2007. Respondent No. 1 is assignee of Respondent No. 2. A notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'SARFAESI Act') was issued by Respondent No. 2. to the Appellant on 5th June, 2008 demanding the outstanding dues, as aforesaid; possession notice under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act was also issued. Appellant challenged these notices before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'DRT'). Said proceedings are still pending. An interi...
Tag this Judgment!Gail (India) Ltd. Vs. Paramount Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Gita Mittal, J.1. GAIL (India) Ltd. (referred to as the petitioner/GAIL hereafter) entered into two contracts with the Paramount Limited ('Contractor'/respondent hereafter), one in respect of a Waste Water Treatment Plant at UPCC, Pata, and the second with regard to the Condensate Polishing Unit (Part-B) for a Gas Cracker Unit for U.P. Petrochemical Complex of M/s GAIL at Pata, Uttar Pradesh.2. Identical disputes arose in respect of completion of the two contracts resulting in initiation of the arbitration in both matters. The disputes in both contracts were referred to the arbitration of Shri T.S. Vijayaraghavan as sole arbitrator. Separate proceedings were held by the learned arbitrator which culminated in the making and pronouncement of two awards both dated 20th November, 2003 in favour of the contractor. GAIL has assailed the said awards by way of the separate objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 which have been registered as OMP No. 66/2004 and ...
Tag this Judgment!