Delhi Court July 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 20 of about 331 results (0.021 seconds)Smiths Detection (Asia Pacific)pte Ltd and anr. Vs Union of India
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 ORDER1. The petitioners seek the quashing of the Global Notice Inviting Tender (GNIT) bearing No.1/2009 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India for procurement of three mobile gamma rays scanners. An alternative prayer has also been made that the said GNIT be quashed only to the extent that it limits and restricts the equipment to be only based on gamma ray technology or to treat such a limitation and restriction as a non-essential condition of the tender.2. The petitioner No.1 is a manufacturer of container scanning systems which are based on X-ray technology. The petitioners are aggrieved by the said GNIT inasmuch as the same has been issued in respect of three mobile container scanning systems for the ports located at Chennai, Kandla an...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs Up Provincial Police Service Association and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. We had heard arguments on 09.07.2010 and reserved the matter, not because any contentious issue arose requiring deliberation of a kind that the matter had to be reserved for judgments, but on account of paucity of time to dictate the decision in Court.2. Respondent No.1, U.P. Provincial Police Service Association and Respondent No.2 working as Additional Superintendent of Police approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.3430/2009, praying that directions be issued to the petitioner and Government of Uttar Pradesh to complete the cadre review of the Indian Police Service (IPS) Cadre before the date 31.12.2009 so that the right of consideration of the eligible police officers belonging to the Provincial Police Service (PPS) in the State of Uttar Pradesh is protected.3. Vide order dated 09.1...
Tag this Judgment!Chander Prakash and ors Vs the State
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 ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.4.1997 and Order on Sentence dated 8.4.1997, whereby the appellants were convicted under Sections 120-B and Section 302 of IPC read with Section 34 thereof and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each or to undergo R.I. for one month each in default under Section 302/34 of IPC, and were given identical punishment under Section 120-B of IPC. It was also directed that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 2. On 5th November, 1993, at about 8.50 pm, Police Control Room informed PS Sultan Puri that an unclaimed gunny bag was lying, on the road going to Village Kironi from Sector 20 of Rohini. On receipt of this information, the police officials reached the spot. On opening the gunny bag, the dead body of...
Tag this Judgment!Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr. Vs Amit Kumar
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER. (Oral)1. The respondent, Amit Kumar, was appointed as Constable in Delhi Police on 29.03.2006. He was called upon to file an Attestation Form along with an undertaking in the requisite proforma, as supplied by the petitioners to him. He did submit the Attestation Form along with an undertaking. The relevant portion of the undertaking reads as under:-"I Amit Kumar s/o Samarpal Singh r/o RZ-6C, New Gopal N, Najafgar, New Delhi 43 Roll No. 826681 do hereby solemnly affirm that I have not concealed any fact in the Application Form as well as in the Attestation Form. I further declare that I have neither been involved in any criminal case nor be arrested/prosecuted/convicted/bound/over/interned/externed as well as not dealt with under any law in force in any criminal case. No criminal case or court proceeding is pend...
Tag this Judgment!Government of Nct of Delhi and ors. Vs Mahavir Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. The short point involved in this matter is as to whether the order dated 21.05.2009 passed in OA No. 2026/2006 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") needs to be interfered with by this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. By the impugned order the Tribunal has directed the petitioners to consider the case of the respondents for regular appointment as per law subject to availability of regular vacancies and without insisting upon their clearing the skill test again.3. As per Recruitment Rules for the post of Drivers in Delhi Administration as notified in 1986 and further amended in 1991, the posts of Light Motor Vehicle Drivers are Group C posts. These posts are to be filled by the promotion, failing which by direct r...
Tag this Judgment!Rajan Mayor and Another Vs Panalpina World Transport
Court: Delhi
ORDER1. These two petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have been filed by M/s Mayor International Ltd, Mr. Rajan Mayor and Mr. C.P. Vohra for setting aside the order dated 25th July, 2006 by which cognizance of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 was taken and the petitioners were summoned to appear in a criminal complaint filed by M/s Panalpina World Transport (India) Private Limited, the respondent No.1 herein.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that statutory notice was not issued and served on M/s Mayor International Limited. The petitioners have, however, filed a copy of the notice dated 23rd June, 2006 with additional documents filed on 30th September, 2009. The said notice has been addressed to M/s Mayor International Limited at 39/7 Milestone, Delhi Jaipur Highway, Sector 35, Gurgaon, which admittedly is a registered address of the said company. In view of the Section 51 of the Companies Act, 1956, I do not thi...
Tag this Judgment!DIn Dayal Kayan Vs Smc Global Securities Ltd
Court: Delhi
ORDER1.These four petitions under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are directed against the summoning order dated 23rd April, 2009, taking cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 and summoning the petitioner to appear for dishonour of four cheques as per details given below:- Cheque Number Date Amount1. 059823 19.01.2008 Rs. 5,00,000/-2. 703766 06.02.2008 Rs. 5,00,000/-3. 703767 06.02.2008 Rs. 5,00,000/- 4 703782 21.03.2008 Rs. 4,00,000/-2. In the petitions it is admitted that there were business dealings between the petitioner and the complainant, the respondent herein and the petitioner was acting as a sub-broker with a terminal of the respondent at the petitioner's address. It is further stated that the parties worked together up to 22nd January, 2008 and thereafter the petitioner stopped working with the respondent-complainant.3. As per the complaint, the aforesaid cheques were presented for encashment and were returned bac...
Tag this Judgment!Hari NaraIn Tandon Vs Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER. (Oral)1. Rule DB.2. Heard for disposal.3. A sum of Rs.2,69,918/- was deducted from the gratuity payable to the petitioner upon retirement, being the penal rent from 25.5.2002 to 5.5.2003.4. Facts noted by the Tribunal are that the petitioner, posted as Assistant Commercial Manager, Moradabad, was transferred to Chandausi in May 2000. He requested that he be permitted to retain the railway accommodation for a period of two years on normal rent. Said request was allowed. Thus, till 24.5.2002 the petitioner was liable to pay, and did pay, the normal rent.5. Before 24.5.2002, on 11.4.2002, the petitioner requested for extending the permission up to March 2003, stating that the applicable rules permitted extension to vacate the accommodation on account of the education of the son of the petitioner.6. Receiving no res...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Paliwal Glass Works C.C.E., Kanpur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: The applications are for condonation of delay in filing appeals against a common order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No.13-19-CE/APPL/06 dated 19.1.2006. The appeals have been filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 6th October 2009. On the face of it, there is delay of more than 3 years in filing these appeals. 2. Learned Consultant for the applicants submits that they came to know of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) only on 6.7.09 when they applied for copy of the order. On perusal of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), it is noticed that personal hearing was granted on 17.8.05 and no one appeared on that date. However, opportunity was granted on 14.11.05 and also on 29.12.05 but the Advocate of the applicants had taken adjournment. No body appeared on 10.1.2006, the next date of hearing. In other words, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is an ex-parte order. There is endorsement dated 6.7.09 in the copies of the orders filed in the CESTS...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Suttind Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Sutton and Sons India Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment?(2) To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes (3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes 1. This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CPC) read with Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, seeking interim injunction against the defendant for restraining it through its directors etc. from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising directly and indirectly dealing in vegetable and flower seeds bearing the trade mark "SUTTON SEEDS" within parallelogram as and/or any other trade mark, as may be identical with and/or deceptively and confusingly similar to plaintiffs registered trade mark "SUTTIND SEEDS" within parallelogram in class 31, as to pass off or enable others to pass off defendants goods/product etc. as that of the plaintiff, with further directions to the defendant to withd...
Tag this Judgment!