Delhi Court April 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 10 of about 223 results (0.007 seconds)Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Bwl Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Manmohan, J.1. Present petition has been filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1996') challenging the arbitral Award dated 4th October, 2003 passed by the Sole Arbitrator, Mr. Justice (Retd.) K.S. Sidhu.2. Mr. H.S. Phoolka, learned senior counsel for petitioner-objector impugns the findings of fact arrived at by the Arbitrator. He further submits that in view of the liquidated damages clause in the present Agreement, Arbitrator should have awarded damages/costs without saddling the petitioner-objector with the responsibility to prove the said damages. In this connection, Mr. Phoolka relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. reported in : (2003) 5 SCC 705 and the judgments of this Court in Union of India v. Hakam Chand and Co. reported in 2009 (1) Arb. L.R. 421 (Delhi) (DB) and Union of India v. Daulat Ram Industries reported in 2009 (2) Arb. L.R. 327 (Delhi).3. In fa...
Tag this Judgment!Guddu Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Ajit Bharihoke, J.1. Above appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 23.12.1999 in Sessions Case No. 7/98, FIR No. 240/98, P.S. Mangol Puri. In terms of the judgment, the appellants Sanju and Mukesh have been convicted under Sections 392 IPC read with Section 397 IPC. Appellant Tara Chand has been convicted under Section 392 IPC read with Section 397 IPC as also under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The appellant Guddu has been convicted under Section 392 IPC read with Section 397 IPC, Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and also under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. The appellants were sentenced accordingly in terms of the order on sentence dated 04.01.2000.2. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that in the morning of 13.03.1998 at 7:45 am on the receipt of information from PCR Constable Geeta No. 3700/PCR, DD No. 7A was recorded at P.S. Mangol Puri (Ex.PW13/A) that a dead body was found lying behind DESU Office, Railway Line, Mangol Puri. Co...
Tag this Judgment!Sunder @ Sanju Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Ajit Bharihoke, J.1. Appellant Sunder @ Sanju has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment in Sessions Case No. 40/2001 arising out of FIR No. 339/2000 P.S. Mangol Puri convicting him for the offences under Sections 120B IPC, 302 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.2. Briefly put, case of the prosecution is that on 16.04.2000, appellant Sunder @ Sanju entered into a criminal conspiracy with his co-accused Vikas, Sanjeev, Mohd. Abdul Hamid and Bhawishan Singh @ Vijay to commit murder of Sanjay s/o Kashi Ram and in furtherance of the conspiracy committed murder of Sanjay on 16.04.2000 at about 7.15 p.m. in front of H. No. T-1302, Mangol Puri, Delhiand caused simple injury with sharp object to Lakhpati and Raj Kapoor Singh.3. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant moved an application being Crl. M.B. No. 42/2010 under Section 389 Cr.P.C. in which one of the pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant was that the appellant was...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind Kumar Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Manmohan Singh, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the respondent No. 2 to grant appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in OBC category in the post code 018/08 and quashing the result dated 30.03.2009 and 20.07.2009 declared by the respondent No. 2 for the said post.2. The brief facts are that the petitioner is a 'JAT' by caste included in the OBC category vide notification No. F.28(93)/91-92/SC/ST/P&S;/4384. He completed his diploma in Civil Engineering from Pusa Polytechnic, Delhi and started working between July 2004 to December 2007 with A. Khanna & Associates, Delhi.3. In July, 2008 an advertisement was issued by the respondent No. 2 in employment news dated 19-25 July, 2008 for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in MCD/respondent No. 3 in the pay-scale of 5000-8000 in which 86 vacancies out of 268 were reserved for OBC candidates.4. The petitioner being ...
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Kr. Goel Vs. Bharat Rasayan Finance Ltd.
Court: Delhi
ORDERSanjiv Khanna, J.1. By order dated 27th January, 2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the petitioner-accused was admitted to bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 2 lacs with one surety of the like amount. The said order records that bail bonds were furnished and accepted and as the petitioner-accused had pleaded not guilty to notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the case was fixed for recording of complainant's evidence on 10th February, 2010.2. Order dated 27th January, 2010 reveals that at about 3 p.m. the case was again taken up by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate as Assistant Ahlmad had reported that the signatures of the petitioner-accused could not be obtained on the bail bond register. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate thereupon issued bailable warrants for the sum of Rs. 10,000/- against the accused returnable on 1st February, 2010.3. The second order passed at about 3 p.m. on 27th January, 2010 was in the absence of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Anu Ahluwalia and ors. Vs. Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
ORDERSanjiv Khanna, J.1. The petitioners herein have challenged summoning order dated 25th March, 2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, inter alia, relying upon in view of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short). Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that averments made in the complaint do not satisfy the requirements of Section 141 of the Act and relies upon decision of the Supreme Court in National Small Industries Corporation Limited v. Harmeet Singh Paintal and Anr. : (2010) 3 SCC 330.2. The question of vicarious liability and scope of enquiry of when cognizance is taken and summons are issued and in which cases, a revisionary court can interfere to strike down a summoning order has been a subject matter of several decisions of the Supreme Court. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Ors. : AIR 1983 SC 67, it was observed that proceedings at the initial stage can be quashed only wh...
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Bajaj Vs. the Registrar Cooperative Societies
Court: Delhi
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. The facts of both these petitions are more or less similar and therefore, it will be sufficient to refer to the facts of W.P.(C) No. 8125/2008. The challenge by means of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 16.9.2008 of the Financial Commissioner whereby the Financial Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the appellant/petitioner against the order dated 14.2.2003 passed by the Registrar. The Registrar vide order dated 14.2.2003, confirmed the expulsion of the petitioner from the respondent No. 2 society for non-payment of dues.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner became a member of the respondent No. 2 society in 1993. The petitioner had opted for a 'A' category flat in the form submitted to the respondent No. 2 society in 1995. The respondent No. 2 society however issued a demand notice to the petitioner on 1.12.1997 for a 'C' category flat and the last date for payment was given as 16.12.1997.3. The petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Rajdev Kumar Yadav Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Discussing the evidence led, concluding the decision in para 87 of the impugned judgment and order dated 10.9.2009, the learned Trial Judge has held as under:87. Consequently, it is established from the evidence that the prosecution has successfully proved the chain of circumstances, i.e., last seen of accused in the company of deceased Ambey; motive for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased; absconding of the accused from the spot after committing the murder of deceased Ambey and recovery of body of deceased Ambey from the spot; seizure of attendance registers of the employers of the deceased and the accused; arrest of accused from his native village, his disclosure statement and recovery of weapon of offence, i.e., Gandasa at the instance of the accused; post-mortem on the body of the deceased and the report of the autopsy surgeon and the FSL report, added by taking false defence by the accused, in which in all the probabilities, the accused committ...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Prakash Vs. Wimpy Fast Food P. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.The Counsels have been heard. The facts which emerge are as under:1. Mr. Jai Prakash petitioner in WP(C) 6340/2002 raised an industrial dispute against 'the Management of M/s. Wimpy Fast Food Pvt. Ltd., N-5, Janpath, Connaught Place, New Delhi'. The same was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court rendered an award dated 15th September, 1993. In the said award it is mentioned that the management had before the Labour Court filed a written statement wherein they had admitted that the said Jai Prakash was employed with them w.e.f. 5th February, 1985 at a monthly salary of Rs. 450/- per month; however, on account of his misbehavior, his services were terminated after making inquiries on 31st August, 1988. It is further recorded in the award that the management did not come forward to lead any evidence to prove its defence. The Labour Court accordingly held the termination of services of the said Jai Prakash by 'the Management of Wimpy Fast Food Pvt. Ltd.' as i...
Tag this Judgment!Khurshid Vs. the State (N.C.T. of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 27.01.2010, the appellant has been convicted for the offence of having murdered Tehsheem Khan @ Taslim Khan at about 11:15 PM on 01.05.2006 at Nawab Road within the jurisdiction of P.S. Sadar Bazar.2. As per the prosecution, a motive proved through the testimony of Mohd. Mansoor Khan PW-1, who is the brother- in-law of the accused is that the deceased used to brag that he was having illicit relationship with the wife of accused and humiliated by these taunts, the accused did the offending act.3. It may be noted that the deceased is the son of one Robesha, the sister of Mohd. Mansoor Khan. In other words, the deceased was the nephew of Mohd. Mansoor Khan and the accused is the brother-in-law of Mohd.Mansoor Khan.4. PW-1, PW-10, PW-14, PW-15 and PW-17 were cited as eye-witness, all of whom have supported the case of the prosecution, having deposed that on 01.05.2006 they were at Nawab Road at 11:15 PM having seen of Manne Kha...
Tag this Judgment!