Delhi Court June 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 7 of about 102 results (0.020 seconds)Association for Welfare of Delhi Stock Broker and ors. Vs Union of Ind ...
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes1. The Petitioner No.1 is the Association for Welfare of Delhi Stock Brokers (Association) which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The list of the members of the Petitioner No. 1 Association is at Annexure P-1. These individual stock brokers have also joined as Petitioners in the present petition pursuant to an order dated 3rd November 2004. The Association is aggrieved by a circular dated 10th October 2003 issued by the Respondent No. 2, Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) as well as Clauses 2 and 3 of Part 2 of the SEBI (Interest Liability Regularization) Scheme, 2004 (SILRS), in so far as it restrains SEBI from considering the turnover data with breakup of the members of the Petitioner No.1 Association which has been furnished to the SEBI by the Delhi Stock Exchange...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Sh. Ranbir and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest?ORDER.1. The petitioner MCD seeks a writ of certiorari quashing / setting aside of the award dated 12th October, 1998 of the Labour Court on the following reference:-"Whether the services of Sh. Ranbir Singh have been terminated illegally and / or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"2. The petitioner MCD failed to appear before the Labour Court and was proceeded against ex parte. The Labour Court has held that the termination of services of the respondent no. 1 workman was in violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act and thus illegal. The Labour Court has further observed that there is no compelling reason for denial of full back wages to the respondent workman. Accordingly, the petitioner MCD has been directed to reinstate ...
Tag this Judgment!Swarn Darshan Impex (P) Ltd Vs Commisisoner, Value Added Tax and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest Yes ORDER(ORAL)1. In this writ petition, inter alia, the following reliefs have been prayed for :-"(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature thereof directing the respondents to refund the amount of Rs 41,89,487/- due to the petitioner along with interest thereon forthwith;(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the impugned notice dated 09.04.2010 under Section 58A for Special Audit;(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature thereof directing the respondents to release the documents/ records seized by way of illegal search. Mr Bajpai, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, at the outset, stated that in this writ petition he would be limiting his submissions to prayer (i) ab...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Chand Saini Vs Krishan Singh Saini
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes.1. This second appeal was filed in the year 2002 by the appellant to set aside the judgment and decree dated 28th January, 1987 passed by Sub-Judge, First Class, Delhi and to set aside the judgment dated 31st January, 2002 passed by first appellate court upholding the order of Sub-Judge in R.C.A. No.17 of 2001. No questions of law were framed by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal. Only grounds of appeal were mentioned in general. The following grounds could be culled out by this court on the basis of which the order of first appellant court was assailed :-a. That the court below passed the judgment and decree relying upon a document Ex. PW 3/D1 a Bank Statement which was inadmissible in evidence and not relying on the document Ex. PW 4/1 which was issued by the appellants bank.b. That the court below misr...
Tag this Judgment!Thounaojam Shyamkumar Singh Vs State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes.ORDER. (ORAL)1. This is a petition for grant of interim bail to the petitioner for a period of two months in case FIR No. 70/2006 under Sections 18/19/20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2004, Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3/9 of the Official Secret Act read with Section 120B of the IPC, registered at Police Station- Special Cell.2. The petitioner is a sitting Member of the Manipur Legislative Assembly. The petitioner was the Deputy Speaker of the Manipur Legislative Assembly and Chairman of three Statutory House Committees. The petitioner was elected Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) while in judicial custody in the aforesaid case. The petitioner resigned from the post of Deputy Speaker and three Committees before he surrendered in the Court on 18th April, 2...
Tag this Judgment!Kulwant Singh Vs P.O. Industrial Tribunal-i and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NOORDER.1. The petitioner has filed these applications for restoration of CM No.266/2010 and for condonation of 20 days delay in applying for the same.2. CM No.266/2010 was filed for restoration of CMs15448-49/2009 which were dismissed in default for non prosecution on 9th December, 2009.3. CMs No.15448-49/2009 were filed for restoration of the writ petition dismissed for non prosecution on 30th September, 2008 and for condonation of 399 days delay in applying for the same.4. Though the advocate for the petitioner, in support of the applications being CMs No.7694-95/2010 has filed his own affidavit but finding the default of the petitioner to be three fold as aforesaid and further finding that the writ petition had been pending for the last ten years, this Court was not inclined to entertain the same. However, i...
Tag this Judgment!Himalaya Drug Co. Vs Sbl Limited
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be referred in the digest? Yes 1. The Plaintiff, which is the manufacturer of an Ayurvedic medicine "Liv.52", seeks a permanent injunction restraining infringement of its said trademark by the Defendant which is manufacturing a Homeopathic drug "LIV-T".2. The case has been entirely presented and argued as a suit for infringement. The incidental reliefs are for delivery up of all the infringing goods and rendition of accounts by the Plaintiff. Pleadings3. The Plaintiff is a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing Ayurvedic medicinal preparations and formulations since 1930. It claims to have gained tremendous reputation in the field of medicine and amongst consumers through large-scale advertising, extensive sales and innovative promotional schemes. Liv.52 is stated to be among several well-known ...
Tag this Judgment!Saroj Rani Vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the order? Yes2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the order should be referred in the digest? Yes1. The Petitioner is the wife of late Vinod Kumar and is the mother of two small children aged 8 years and 3 years respectively. Vinod Kumar was arrested by the Delhi Police on 9th June 2007 and was sent to judicial custody in Tihar Jail on 10th June 2007. He died on 12th June 2007 while in Tihar Jail. This petition seeks compensation for his death from both the Delhi Police as well as the Tihar Jail authorities. Events leading to the petition2. This Court in the first instance proposes to set out the versions of the events leading up to Vinod Kumars death as narrated in the counter affidavit of the Tihar Jail authorities (Respondent No.2) and the Delhi Police (Respondent No.3).3. According to the Delhi Police, Vinod Kumar used to work as a labourer, cleaning sewage lines. He was an alcoholic for the last five yea...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Santosh Kumar Sur Vs Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Yes Digest?ORDER1. The present writ petition assails the memorandum dated 19th October, 1985 issued by the Commandant of the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as `CISF' for brevity) proposing to hold an inquiry against the petitioner and communicating the statement of articles of charge; imputations of misconduct and misbehaviour in respect of each article of charge.2. The petitioner also assails the order dated 28th June, 1986 passed by the disciplinary authority accepting the findings of the inquiry officer finding the petitioner guilty of the article of charge no.I while declaring that article of charge nos.II & III as not proven against the petitioner. A challenge is also laid to the order dated 31st October, 1986 passed by the Deputy Director General of the CISF-the appellate authority re...
Tag this Judgment!Shubhra Chit Fund (P) Ltd Vs Ram Kumar Shastri and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER.1.The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:- The appellant is running a chit fund business. Respondent No.1 became member of two chits of Rs.50,000/- each spread over in 40 months with the monthly subscription of Rs.2500/- for both the chits less dividend as per the chit agreement executed between him and the appellant. Both the chits were prized at Rs.30,000/- each and the prized money amounting to Rs.60,000/- was paid to respondent No.1. After receiving the prized chits, respondent No.1 defaulted in making payment of the installments. Hence, a legal notice was sent to the respondents which evoked no response from them leaving the appellant with no option but to refer the matter to the sole arbitration of Shri S.P.Aggarwal, Advocate in terms of the agreement between the parties. T...
Tag this Judgment!