Delhi Court August 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Smt. Raj Kapur and anr. Vs State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2010
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? 1.The present petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law, for quashing a complaint under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 qua them, made by respondent No.2. It is stated by the petitioners that respondent no.2 was married about 27 years ago. She was employed and was earning Rs. 40,000/- pm and was owner of a new car and was working in a store viz. M/s. Atmosphere. She had leveled various allegations against her husband and the only allegations against the petitioners were that the jewellery gifted to her by her family was in custody of petitioners. It is stated that the jewellery was gifted to her 27 years ago and was in her exclusive possession, she herself owned a locker in New Friends Colony being locker No. NFC D-1097 NFCGF), where she had kept her...
Haryana Power Purchase Centre. Vs P.T.C. India Ltd. and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2010
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO the Digest?ORDER.1. The appellant/applicant, Haryana Power Purchase Centre (hereinafter referred to as the 'HPPC) has filed this appeal under Section 37 (1) (a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 seeking inter-alia to set aside the order dated 19th February, 2010 passed in OMP No.25 of 2010 filed by the P.T.C. India Ltd. against the Jaypee Karcham Hydro Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the JKHCL) under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966. The appellant/applicant has also sought a direction to PTC India Ltd., respondent No.1 and JKHCL, respondent No.2 to approach Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'CERC') and to make an interim arrangement for three weeks for continuation of order dated 29th January, 2010 passed by the Division Bench in FAO (O...
Ptc India Ltd. Vs Jaypee Karcham Hydro Corporation .
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2010
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO the Digest?ORDER.1. The appellant PTC India Limited/Trading Licensee of electricity, has challenged the order dated 19th February, 2010, passed by the Single Judge in OMP No. 25/2010 titled as PTC India Limited v. Jaypee Karcham Hydro Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as JKHCL) dismissing its petition under Section 9 (ii) (d) and (e) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking an interim stay against the termination of PPA agreement dated 21st March, 2006 executed between the appellant and the respondent by letter dated 17th December, 2009 by JKHCL/respondent and a direction to respondent/JKHCL not to enter into any agreement for sale of power with any other party to the extent of power contracted by JKHCL with the appellant.2. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition has held that in view...
B.L. Narsimhulu Vs National Highways Authority of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2010
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers 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. The National Highway Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as the NHAI) had made certain selections to the post of Deputy General Manager (Finance & Accounts) for which purpose Selection Committee held its meeting on 21.11.2006. Four persons were shortlisted and recommended for appointment to the said post. One Mr. Rajesh Gupta, who was working as Manager (Finance and Accounts) in the NHAI, had also applied for the aforesaid post of Deputy General Manager (Finance & Accounts), but was not selected. He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) by filing OA against his non-selection. In the said OA, he also impleaded three out of four persons, who were selected for appointment to the said post i.e. the petitioner herein was not impleaded. Mr. Gupta had que...
Kailash Chandra Sharma Vs Ndmc
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2010
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing an order dated 30th September, 2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Criminal Revision No.75 of 2008 framing notice under Section 252/369(1) of the NDMC Act, 1994.2. The contention of the petitioner is that the learned ASJ had not considered that the offence committed by the petitioner was not a continuing offence and the petitioner had once been prosecuted for this offence and acquitted.3. The offence for which the petitioner has been booked by NDMC is misuser of the premises. So long as the misuse of the premises bearing number UB-5, Prakash Deep Building, 7, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi is not stopped, the misuser is a continuing offence and for each day of misuser of the premises in question, the petitioner can b...
Deepraj Vs Vijay Laxmi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2010
(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 Yes1. Under challenge in this appeal is the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge dated 6th November 2008, whereby petition of the appellant filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed.2. In brief, facts of the case are that parties to the petition were married on 16th April, 2004 at Gorakhnath Temple, Gorakhpur, UP. Parties were in love with each other for about four years but since parents of the respondent were not in favour of the marriage, appellant's parents arranged the marriage and the marriage was performed in the temple. This marriage was also got registered. Since 28th May, 2004, respondent deserted the company of the appellant in his absence and left the house without any sufficient caus...
M/S. Takkar (India) Tea Company Vs Soongachi Tea Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
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. Aggrieved by an order dated 2nd February 2007 passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) allowing the appeal filed by the Respondent Soongachi Tea Industries Pvt. Ltd. (STIPL), the Petitioner Takkar (India) Tea Company Co. (TITC) has filed this writ petition. Brief facts2. The case of the Petitioner is that it is engaged in the business of manufacture and trade of tea and has been using the trade mark GOLD LEAF since 1987. It is stated that TITC, through its predecessors made an application on 13th May 1991 under the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (TM Act 1958) for registration of the mark GOLD LEAF (word mark) under Trade Mark Application No. 551031 in relation to tea falling in Class 30 with the Registrar of Trade Marks, New Delhi. The application which was initially filed in the na...
indu Kumar and anr. Vs Cbi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing order of learned Special Judge dated 11th July, 2009, whereby the learned Special Judge dismissed an application of the petitioner for release of original title deed of property and the photocopies of documents ceased by CBI in investigation of RC No. ACU IX/CBI/2008/04.2. The applicant is a company engaged in sale and purchase of immovable properties. The accused in this case was booked for accumulating huge assets disproportionate to his income and it was found by CBI that the accused was using the name of this company to invest ill-gotten money. The company was being run by the wife of accused. Documents showing investments by the company, sources of income of the company and other features of the company were seized by the CBI and it was found by CBI that the com...
Mohan Lal Jatia Vs Registrar General, Supreme Court of IndiA.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
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. By the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) dated 11th December, 2009, whereby an application of the petitioner for adopting a procedure of warrant trial as applicable to a complaint case and for recording pre- charge evidence was dismissed.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that in an SLP pending before Supreme Court, being SLP No. 1330 of 1986, challenging a detention order, an affidavit was filed by accused Ashok Jain that a representation had been made in the Secretariat of President of India on 15th April, 1986, and this representation had not been disposed of by the Central Government. This plea, taken by the petitioner before the Supreme Court, was contested by Union of India (UOI) and it was stated tha...
Farida Jalal Vs State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
ORDER.1. Mr. Shakeel Ahmad, Mr.Moti-ur-Rehman and Ms. Farida Jalal are present in person. Mr. Moti ur Rehman had made a complaint against the petitioner herein pursuant to which FIR No.12/2007 under Sections 341/323/448/380/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Simri, District Darbhanga, Bihar. Similarly, Mr.Shakeel Ahmad had filed a private complaint against Ms.Farida Jalal at Jamshedpur. Pursuant to the order dated 15th April, 2008, the criminal proceedings pursuant to FIR No.12/2007 and the private complaint were transferred to criminal Courts at Delhi by the Supreme Court of India.2. Ms.Farida Jalal had also made a complaint which had resulted in registration of FIR No.26/2007, P.S. New Friends Colony, Delhi, under Section498/406/34 IPC.3. There was settlement and compromise between Ms.Farida Jalal and her ex-husband-Mr.Basid Rehman. They have separated and are now divorced. Vide order dated 28th May, 2010 criminal proceedings initiated pursuant to FIR No...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »