Delhi Court July 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 3 of about 331 results (0.021 seconds)M/S Regent Automobiles Ltd. and anr. Vs SachIn Bhaskar and anr.
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. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners assailing order dated 30th September, 2008 summoning the petitioners for offences under Sections 418/420/463/468 read with Section 120-B IPC. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate in its order observed that prima facie a case under above offences was made out against the accused persons.2. The brief facts relevant for deciding this petition are that the complainant booked an OPEL CORSA 1.4 GLS CASSABLANCA car with petitioners and made a payment of Rs.6,45,478/- vide cheque dated 7th September, 2000 in favour of M/s. Regent Automobiles Limited (petitioner No.1 herein) for purchase of the car. Delivery of the car was to be made within fortnight. On 30th September, 2000, he was told on telephone to take delivery of the car. On 1st Oct...
Tag this Judgment!Nagesh Malik Vs Payal Malik
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.These petitions arise out of order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 7th May, 2010 while disposing of two appeals against the order dated 27th July, 2009 passed by the learned MM.2. The undisputed facts are that Ms. Payal Malik used to live with her parents before marriage at Hissar. Her marriage took place with Mr. Nagesh Malik whose parents used to live at Panipat. Marriage of the parties was solemnized at Panipat on 30th August, 2001. Nagesh Malik was already working in USA and after marriage both of them went to USA on 20th September, 2001 where they settled their matrimonial home and lived together. On 24th October, 2002 a female child was born to the couple at USA, who was named as Vanishka. The parties continued living together in USA till 2008. It seems deep differences arose between ...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Development Authority Vs Shree Durga Construction Co.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER.By way of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, it is prayed that orders dated 31st August, 2009 as well as 24th May, 2010, passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi be set aside.2. Respondent herein, filed a suit for recovery of Rs.20 lakh against the petitioner. Respondent was awarded work of construction of certain houses by the petitioner. Respondent filed recovery suit in respect of certain claims arising out of the contract between the parties in respect of the above mentioned construction work.3. Respondent filed an application under Section 89 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short as Code) for referring the matter to Arbitrator on account of technical nature of the same.4. Averments made in application under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and anr. Vs Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the order should be reported in Digest? Yes ORDER1. These petitions involve the interpretation of Section 1(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (`RTI Act) which states that the RTI Act will extend "to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K;)".2. Writ Petition (C) No. 7604 of 2009 has been filed by the Union of India challenging the order dated 3rd February 2009 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing the Petitioner to provide information to the Respondent Mrs. Veena Kohli in respect of a Court of Inquiry held in an Army Unit located at J&K.;3. The facts are that during April 2006, late Captain Sumit Kohli, the son of the Respondent was serving with the 18 Rashtriya Rifles in the State of J&K.; On 30th April 2006 at about 1520 hrs, a sound of burst fire from an automatic weapon was heard from the quarters of Cap...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Aggarwal and ors. Vs Y.K.Goel
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. The above & many more petitions arisen out of the proceedings pending before the Trial Courts under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (N.I. Act) are pending before this Court. It is seen that the High Court is being flooded with petitions under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaints under section 138 N.I. Act on the ground that learned MMs cannot recall their own orders of summoning and it is the High Court that should consider that the complaint under section 138 of N.I. Act was not maintainable against the petitioners. Reliance is placed on Adalat Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal and Others; (2004) 7 SCC 338 to press the point that the petitioners have no other alternative but to approach the High Court. While Adalat Prasad case (supra) laid down that if a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence a...
Tag this Judgment!M/S M.M.Chhabra and Sons (Huf) Vs M/S Colour Plus Fashions Ltd
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers YES may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? YES3. Whether the judgment should be YES reported in the Digest?ORDER1. This order will dispose of an application, under Order XII Rule 6, CPC, preferred by the plaintiff, being IA No. 3863/2010. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff for possession of Shop No. 14E, Connaught Place, New Delhi (hereafter "the suit property") and recovery of damages/ mesne profits @ ` 25 lakhs per month from 01.12.2009 till delivery of possession. The facts of the case are mentioned below.2. The plaintiff (hereinafter called M.M. Chhabra) is registered owner of the suit property, acquired through a registered sale deed dated 19.08.2004. The suit property was leased out to the defendant (hereinafter called Colour Plus) for five years commencing from 22.11.2004 and ending on 21.11.2009, by registered lease deed dated 22.11.2004. The initial rent was ` 8,00,000 per month for the first 3...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Melton India Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs M/S Ester Industries Ltd.
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. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing summoning order dated 23rd September, 2008 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate in a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The sole ground argued before this court is that a demand notice u/s 138 N.I. Act should specify that the cheque amount should be paid within 15 days of receipt of notice whereas in the notice served by the complainant upon the petitioner payment of dishonoured cheque amount was demanded within 30 days instead of 15 days. It is stated that in view of this, the notice was bad in law and the summoning order should be quashed.3. This court in Satyawan Chaplot vs. Rajendra; 1998 (4) Crimes 375 and German Remedies Ltd. vs. Harish C. Duggal Agencies; 1997 (1) RCR (Crl.) 412 has held that notice of deman...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Agarwal Vs State and anr.
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. The above & many more petitions arisen out of the proceedings pending before the Trial Courts under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (N.I. Act) are pending before this Court. It is seen that the High Court is being flooded with petitions under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaints under section 138 N.I. Act on the ground that learned MMs cannot recall their own orders of summoning and it is the High Court that should consider that the complaint under section 138 of N.I. Act was not maintainable against the petitioners. Reliance is placed on Adalat Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal and Others; (2004) 7 SCC 338 to press the point that the petitioners have no other alternative but to approach the High Court. While Adalat Prasad case (supra) laid down that if a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence a...
Tag this Judgment!Director of Income Tax Vs Acme Educational Society
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the 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 the Digest? Yes1. With consent of the parties, matter was taken up for hearing and final disposal. After extensively hearing both the parties, the judgment was reserved in the matter on 19th July, 2010.2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity "Act, 1961") challenging the order dated 23rd April, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "ITAT") in ITA No. 625/Del/2009, for the assessment year 2005-2006.3. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the present case are that on 27th October, 2005 assessee-society filed a return declaring nil income and claiming benefit under Section 11 of Act, 1961. During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noticed that the assessee- society had in the assessment year 2005-2006 given a loan of Rs. 90,50,000/- to...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Kumar and ors. Vs Lt.Governor of Delhi and ors.
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?ORDER1. Petitioners participated in a selection process for the recruitment of Constables in Delhi Police pursuant to an advertisement issued on 01.05.2008 for filling up 3388 vacancies of Constables (Executives) both Male and Female. This was in accordance with the Standing Order (SO) No. 212/2008 dated 24.04.2008 which prescribed the procedure for recruitment of constables. The criteria for filling up the vacancies were prescribed in the application forms. After a written examination was conducted for the vacancies on 26.10.2008, the petitioners were declared successful in the written test and were also called for the interview. Thereafter, they were called for a medical test.2. The respondents however amended Standing Order No. 212/2008 on 15.12.2008 i.e. before completing the process of selection by increasing the ...
Tag this Judgment!