Delhi Court May 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 8 of about 157 results (0.020 seconds)Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr. Vs. Jai Prakash
Court: Delhi
Mool Chand Garg, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 15.01.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) whereby the Tribunal has allowed the OA filed by the petitioner.2. The Original Application was filed by the petitioner who was sought to be deprived of his employment with Delhi Police on the ground that in his application filed before the authorities he had disclosed that a criminal case vide FIR No. 134/2006 under Section 32/33 of the Forest Act, 1927 read with Section 379 IPC was in progress. On 17.10.2008, he also informed the authorities that he was acquitted in those proceedings. In the circumstances, the respondent was informed that the matter will be examined afresh and he will be advised of the decision taken. It may be observed here that as per the order passed by the Criminal Court, the order of acquittal was pa...
Tag this Judgment!Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. Vs. Hamar Television Network Pvt. Ltd. ...
Court: Delhi
Rajiv Shakdher, J.IA No. 12926/2009 (Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC) in CS(OS) 1889/2009IA No. 13058/2009 (Order 39 Ruoe 1 & 2 of CPC) in CS(OS) 1906/20091. I propose to dispose of the captioned applications in the abovementioned suits being: CS(OS) No. 1906/2009 and 1889/2009 by a common order for the reason that parties in the two suits are common [save and except M3 Media Pvt. Ltd. which is impleaded as defendant No. 2 in CS(OS) No. 1906/2009; and similarly, Hamar Television Network Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Hamar TV), which is impleaded as defendant No. 1 in CS(OS) 1889/2009]; the pleadings are identical except for minor differences; and lastly though not the least, the issues and submissions made before me are common. Thus, except for the fact that relief is directed against parties which are not entirely identical, there is substantial commonality of parties, issues, pleadings and also reliefs.2. Coming to the applications: the plaintiff, which carries on its business un...
Tag this Judgment!Gurbhej Singh Vs. Preeti Kaur
Court: Delhi
Aruna Suresh, J C.M. (Main) No. 537/2009 and C.M. Appl. Nos. 8108/2009 (stay) & 1987/2010 (Under Section 24 H.M. Act)1. Under challenge in this petition is the order of the Additional District Judge dated 23.03.2009, whereby on an application of Respondent wife filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), he assessed income of Petitioner husband at Rs. 50,000/- per month and awarded maintenance @ Rs. 15,000/- per month to the Respondent and also directed the Petitioner to pay Rs. 8,000/- as litigation expenses.2. Mr. O.P. Wadhwa, counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that Petitioner belongs to a lower middle class family and earns his livelihood as a fortune teller and by selling glass bangles, Rashi Nag, etc. and lives in a joint family and that he has been visiting abroad with his father and brother on a tourist visa and not for any business purpose. He suffered serious injuries and is not capable of...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nirmal Kaur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The present appeal has been filed by insurance company assailing an award dated 10th November 2009 passed by learned Tribunal whereby the learned Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 6,30,000/- with interest @ 7.5 per annum to the claimants.2. The sole ground of assailing the award is that the claim petition was converted at the request of claimants from one under Section 166 and 140 to Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act. However, while awarding compensation, the Tribunal has given a complete go-by to Section 163A of the said Act and calculated compensation in accordance with Section 166 of the Act. It is submitted that under Section 163A of the Act, the maximum annual income of a person can be taken as Rs. 40,000/- and compensation can be awarded only in accordance with Schedule specifically made under Section 163A and compensation cannot be awarded taking into account any other parameters.3. There is no dispute that the claim petition initially filed under ...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Kumar Vs. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Ajit Bharihoke, J.1. Appellant Deepak Kumar has been convicted vide impugned judgment dated 27.4.2009 in Sessions Case No. 76/07, FIR No. 327/07, P.S. Moti Nagar for murder of his 40 days old child under Section 302 IPC and sentenced in terms of order dated 29.4.2009 to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-. We may note that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not awarded any sentence in the event of default of payment of fine. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and the order on sentence, Deepak Kumar has preferred this appeal.2. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 19.05.2007 at about 09:30 p.m., Head Constable Sukhbir, No. 2361 who was on duty at RML Hospital telephonically informed P.S. Moti Nagar that one child Umang son of Deepak has been admitted in the hospital in injured condition by his mother Deepika with the history of having sustained injury due to fall from hands. This information was recorded in Daily Diary register as Ent...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
V.K. Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 12.06.2009, passed in ITA No. 1189/Del/2008, whereby it allowed the appeal filed by the assessee/respondent, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), dismissing its appeal and confirming the penalty imposed on it under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The assessee company, which is engaged in the business of hiring of audio and video equipments, filed return declaring income of Rs 1,21,49,861/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. It was noticed during assessment that in Schedule 9, relating to Administration and other Expenses, forming part of Profit & Loss Account, a sum of Rs 1,21,49,861/- had been debited under the head 'equipment written off'. It was stated by the assessee that due to oversight, this amount was not added back in computation of income and the same ought to have been adjusted in the block of asset...
Tag this Judgment!Ashwani Gas Service Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Rekha Sharma, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of Additional District Judge, Shri Umed Singh Grewal dated October 18, 2008 dismissing the objections filed by the appellant against an arbitral award dated November 07, 2007 on the ground that the same were barred by the law of limitation.2. The facts are not in dispute and are as under:The arbitral award dated November 07, 2007 was received by the appellant on November 21, 2007. In terms of Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which provides that, 'an application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award', the appellant ought to have filed the objections by February 20, 2008. However, instead of filing the objections in the Court of Additional District Judge, the appellant filed a writ-petition in this Court on February 20, 2008. The Registry of t...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Basudeo Dalmia and anr. Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Hima Kohli, J.1. Pursuant to the order dated 12.4.2010, appearance is entered on behalf of the respondents No. 2 to 10. Though respondent No. 1 is duly served, both by ordinary process as also dasti, none is present on its behalf. It is therefore assumed that the said respondent No. 1 does not wish to contest the present petition. Counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 10 also states that he does not oppose the prayer made in the present petition.2. The present petition is directed against an order dated 21.12.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, dismissing an application filed by the petitioners for issuance of letters of administration with respect to some articles found in the locker of the deceased, Smt. Indramani Mandelia, after the original petition for grant of letters of administration, was allotted and disposed of on 14.12.2006.3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that two separate Wills were executed by Mr. Durga Prasad Mandelia (testator) and his wife, Smt. In...
Tag this Judgment!Mukesh Kapoor Vs. Shri Munna Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the injured who was awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- by learned MAC Tribunal vide its order dated 22nd March, 1996. The appellant has assailed the order on two counts; one that the compensation awarded to him was on lower side and second that the Tribunal wrongly held that the liability of the insurance company/respondent No. 3 was limited to Rs. 50,000/-.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are that the appellant received injuries on 8th April, 1982 in an accident caused due to rash and negligent act of driving of vehicle No. DLG-9261 by its driver, that is, respondent No. 1. In the accident, the appellant received following injuries:(i) Fracture of ring finger of right hand;(ii) Fracture of both bones of left forearm;(iii) Fracture of right thigh bone; and (iv) Head injuries.3. The injured had claimed a compensation of Rs. 4 lac. He had pleaded that he used to earn Rs. 2,000/- per month. He remained in hos...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Sant Singh Vs. Shri K.G. Ringshia
Court: Delhi
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The plaintiff claims a declaration in this suit, that the letter dated 20th November, 1984, by the defendant (hereafter 'the impugned letter'; intimating about cancellation of a previous agreement between the parties, in respect of sale of a flat in Bombaynow Mumbai) is illegal and void, and that the agreement between the parties, dated 10th November, 1979 subsists and binds them.2. Briefly, the facts are that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement on 10.11.1979 with the defendant whereby a flat in the multi-storeyed building 'ADITYA' to be constructed at Chakla Village, Andheri (East), Bombay by the defendant was agreed to be delivered to him on construction, for which he had paid a sum of Rs. 5,499/- to the latter. The plaintiff contends that though a number of years elapsed, and he came to know that construction of the building had started, nothing was heard from the defendant. The plaintiff alleges that he changed his residence, and intimated this to the...
Tag this Judgment!