Delhi Court July 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 30 of about 331 results (0.021 seconds)Ram Kishan Sharma Vs Layak Ram Sharma
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. Challenging the order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 20.02.2006, appellant (plaintiff in the suit) has filed this appeal.2. Succinctly, the case of the appellant is that he filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,51,458/- under the summary provision of Order 37 CPC alleging that on verbal request of the Respondent (defendant in the suit) he advanced a sum of Rs.75,000/- vide cheque No.684717 on 10.08.1998 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Banda Bahadur Marg, Delhi @ 20% per annum for a period of five years in the presence of two witnesses. Thereafter, he sent letters dated 9.06.2003, 07.07.2003 and 16.08.2003 demanding back the money advanced to the defendant. As defendant failed to pay the amount due from him, he filed the suit.3. On an application filed by the defendant, he was granted leave to defend...
Tag this Judgment!Dda Vs JaIn Rolling Mills
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 Yes in the Digest?RAORDER.1. This petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 has been preferred with respect to the arbitral award dated 27th March, 2002. The counsels for the parties made their respective submissions on the basis that the arbitration proceedings were governed by the 1996 Act. However, at the time of preparing the judgment, it is found that the arbitration proceedings in the present case had commenced in the year 1985. Under the provisions of Section 85(2)(a) of the 1996 Act, the arbitral proceedings having commenced before the 1996 Act came into force, are to be governed by the Arbitration Act, 1940 as held by the Supreme Court in Milkfood Ltd. v. GMC Ice Cream (P) Ltd 2004(7) SCC 288. The 1996 Act could have applied only if there had been an agreement to the same effect between the parties. Nei...
Tag this Judgment!Director of Income Tax Vs M/S Bagri Foundation
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.1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 27th February, 2009 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissing the appeal of the Revenue against the order dated 18th June, 2007 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] allowing the appeal of the Assessee against the order dated 23rd March, 2006 of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) assessing the income of the Assessee, a Trust duly registered under Section 12AA and duly recognized under Section 80G(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2003-04 at Rs.31,38,840/- and initiating penalty proceedings against the Assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income.2. The Assessee for the relevant year filed return declaring Nil income. The case though processed under Section 143(1) was selected for...
Tag this Judgment!Kaluva @ Gulfam and ors Vs State and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No be allowed to see the Judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest?ORDER. (Oral)1. The present petitions are filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.PC praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.372/2007 under Sections 323/308/452/34 IPC and FIR No.370/2007 under Sections 308/323/34 IPC, registered at Police Station-New Ashok Nagar and pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is stated by the parties that they have settled their inter se dispute amicably without any undue influence, pressure, threat or coercion and now there is no pending grievance left between the parties.2. It is agreed by respondents No. 2 and 11 that they have no objection to quashing of the aforesaid FIRs. However, learned APP for the State submits that as the parties have put into motion the legal machinery, which has resulted in unnecessary expenditure by the State in investig...
Tag this Judgment!Brig. (Retd.) Ujjal Dasgupta Vs Cabinet Secretariat
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. This petition, which challenges a decision dated 25th August 2009 of the Central Information Commission (CIC), involves the interpretation of the first proviso to Section 24 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act).2. The Petitioner is facing trial for offences under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (OSA) in FIR No. 42 of 2006 registered against him by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police. An application made by him before the trial court seeking supply of certain documents relied upon by the prosecution was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) by an order dated 19th April 2008. This was challenged by the Petitioner in this Court by way of Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1255 of 2008. By an order dated 25th April 2008 this Court disposed of the said petition with certain direction...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Dev Dutt Sharma Vs Managing Society National Public School and ors ...
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may No be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in the Digest?ORDER.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia praying for parity in the salary with other similarly experienced teachers and payment of arrears of salary and allowances w.e.f. 01.04.2006 till date along with interest @ 18% p.a. and other consequential benefits.2. The matrix facts in the present writ petition are that in the year 1970 the respondent no. 1 society took on rent the premises for running its school namely National Public School at 7, Bela Road where the petitioner was initially posted as P.E. Teacher.3. In the year 2001, the landlord of the premises filed a suit for possession and recovery of the measne profit/damages of the aforesaid tenanted premises against the respondent society in the District Court.4. In the year 2005 v...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Ahlcon Parenterals (India) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: After hearing both sides, I allow the stay petition and take up the appeal itself for final disposal. 2. The conduct of the assessee before the adjudicating authority as recorded by the original authority is as follows:- “No reply was filed by the assessee within the stipulated period even after personal hearing was fixed on 6.8.08, 11,8.08, 13.8.08, 14.8.08, 7.10.08, 10.10.08, 14.10.08, 17.10.08, 18.12.08 and 9.1.2009 but neither the assessee have appeared for personal hearing nor filed any reply to the SCN.” The show cause notice was issued on 25.1.08. The non-cooperation of the appellant in the adjudication proceeding cannot be appreciated. 3. There is some improvement in the conduct of the assessee in the proceeding before Commissioner (Appeals) as they have appeared before the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not gone into certain relevant material with the following observations:- “I find that they have not enclo...
Tag this Judgment!In the Matter Of: Sub Virender Singh Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The applicant had filled WP (C) No 7359/2003 in the Honble Delhi High Court praying that his ACR for the period 01/06/99 to 02//12/2000 be quashed and he be promoted in the rank of Subedar with effect from 01/06/02 alongwith back dated seniority with all consequential benefits. The same was transferred to the AFT on 29/10/09. 2. The applicant was enrolled in the Army on 13/11/78. He qualified in the Direct Entry Graduate Havildar Clerk examination on 07/05/1986. He was promoted Havildar on 15/09/86 and Naib Subedar on 01/04/1998. 3. The applicant contends that his ACRs for the period 01/06/98 to 31/05/99 was graded outstanding by the IO Major Ashok Sharma. The RO Col Amit Sarin also graded him accordingly. The ACR for the period 01/06/99 to 31/05/2000 was however an adverse report by the IO Major Kedar Shukla since the applicant did not follow the illegal orders given to him by IO and RO. This report was initiated after the applicant was posted out to 12 DOU. The ROs remarks were c...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Delhi Administration and ors.
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 DTC in this writ petition impugns the award dated 19 th May, 1990 of the Labour Court on the following reference:-"Whether the termination of services of Shri Tej Singh is legal and/or justified and if not, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?" holding the termination to be violative of Section 25 F of the ID Act and directing the petitioner DTC to reinstate the respondent No.3 workman with full back wages in the scale of 260-400/equivalent revised scale on the post of conductor or in some other post in the said scale.2. This Court vide ex parte order dated 2nd May, 1991 while issuing Rule in writ petition stayed recovery by coercive process from the petitioner. On application under Section 17 B of the ID Act being filed by the respondent No.3...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Development Authority Vs M/S. Construction and Design Service
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 objection petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Act) has been filed by the Petitioner DDA challenging the validity and legality of the Award dated 12.08.2004 published by the sole arbitrator Mr.P.K. Bahri, J. in favour of the Respondent (claimant). 2. Petitioner had entered into a contract with M/s. Construction and Design Services under U.P. Water Supply Sewerage Act, 1975 for construction of a Sewage Pumping Station at Kundli Gharoli, Delhi vide Award letter No. F9(1)/ED-9/95-96/DDA/A/Cs/1022 dated 28.09.1995. The work was to be completed within 15 months from the date of the start of the work i.e. 8.10.1995. However, Respondent could not complete the work granted to it under the said contract even after lapse of 42 months.3. Respondent...
Tag this Judgment!