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.
Court on Its Own Motion Vs State V. Gurnek Singh Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
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 sought recall of Look-out- Circular (LOC) and Red Corner Notice (RCN) issued by Delhi Police and Interpol against the petitioner alleging that LOC and RCN were issued in arbitrary and malafide exercise of power by the respondent.2. The petitioner claimed that he was a Canadian citizen since January, 2004 and a person of Indian origin. He had married one Ms. Reema Salkan, daughter of Prof. R.S. Mann, on 24th March, 2002 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Infantry Hostel, Delhi Cantonment, New Delhi. At the time of his marriage, the petitioner was living and working in Canada and he came to India on three weeks leave for the purpose of marriage. The marriage was settled with Ms Reema through matrimonial advertisement in newspaper. The facts reveal that wife of ...
Patiala Casting P. Ltd. and ors. Vs Bhushan Steel Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
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 under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioners sought quashing of criminal complaint no.3360 of 2008 under Section 420 IPC and Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as amended by the Banking Public Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Law(amendment) 1988 (66 of 1988) and quashing of summoning order dated 24th December 2008 made against the petitioners under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, on the ground that the learned MM had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.2. The complainant (respondent herein) was given the cheque in question payable at Bank of Baroda, SSI Mandi, Gobindgarh, Punjab. The complainant deposited this cheque with their banker Punjab National Bank, Partap Ganj Branch, Delhi, since the c...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S. Shell Bitumen India (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes. 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity "Act, 1961") challenging the order dated 10th September, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "ITAT") in relating to the Assessment Year 2005-2006.2. Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal, learned counsel for Revenue submitted that ITAT had failed to appreciate that the consultancy charges paid to various authorities for obtaining study reports in Bitumen constituted an enduring advantage to the respondent-assessee. She further submitted that the study reports in Bitumen constituted acquisition of an income- earning asset and hence expense thereon comprised capital expenditure. Ms. Aggarwal placed reliance upon the Assessing Officer's order, which reads as under :- "The assessee's submissions have been ...
Sumer Singh Salkan Vs Asstt. Director and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
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 sought recall of Look-out- Circular (LOC) and Red Corner Notice (RCN) issued by Delhi Police and Interpol against the petitioner alleging that LOC and RCN were issued in arbitrary and malafide exercise of power by the respondent.2. The petitioner claimed that he was a Canadian citizen since January, 2004 and a person of Indian origin. He had married one Ms. Reema Salkan, daughter of Prof. R.S. Mann, on 24th March, 2002 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Infantry Hostel, Delhi Cantonment, New Delhi. At the time of his marriage, the petitioner was living and working in Canada and he came to India on three weeks leave for the purpose of marriage. The marriage was settled with Ms Reema through matrimonial advertisement in newspaper. The facts reveal that wife of ...
S.K. JaIn Vs Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
ORDER1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned tribunal has erred in relying upon the retracted statement given by Mr. J.K. Jain and therefore, a substantial question of law arises for consideration.2. Mr. J.K. Jain is an employee of the present appellant. From his residence in a search on 3rd May, 1991 foreign currency and travelers cheques were seized by the Central Bureau of Investigation. He had stated that the foreign currency and travelers cheques belonged to and were entrusted to him by his employer Mr. S.K. Jain, the appellant herein. The Central Bureau of Investigation referred the matter to Enforcement Directorate in January, 1995 in view of the foreign currency and travelers cheques which were seized in the raid conducted on 3rd May, 1991.3. The Enforcement Directorate issued notice to both Mr. S.K. Jain, the appellant and Mr. J.K. Jain. Mr. S.K. Jain, the appellant in his statement recorded on 14th April, 1995 admitted that Mr. J.K. Jain was his employee...
Morgan Tectronics Ltd. Vs Cbi.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
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 an order dated 12 th August, 2008 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI, whereby the learned Special Judge framed charges against the petitioner company charging the company under section 420, 468, 471 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC. The only contention raised by the petitioner before this Court is that a company being a juristic person cannot have mens rea necessary for committing offence of criminal conspiracy as required under section 120-B IPC. It was contended that criminal conspiracy was a personal act and company being a non living person and only a juristic person cannot have the requisite mens rea. Reliance was placed by the petitioner on Kalpnath Rai v. State, AIR 1998 SC 201 and Standard Chartered Banks v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2005) 4 SC...
Dhanno Devi Vs State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
1. Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be referred in the Digest? Yes1.This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C challenging the order dated 19.11.2007 passed by learned trial Court.2. Learned trial Court in the impugned order has held that learned Metropolitan Magistrate has wrongly summoned the accused person u/s 319 Cr.P.C on the basis of testimony of PW 3 Mani Ram whose even examination- in-chief has not been completed. Learned ASJ in his order dated 19.11.2007 has observed as under:-"In these circumstances, I feel learned trial Court has acted in a haste in summoning the accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and for the said reason only, impugned order passed by learned trial Court summoning the petitioner as an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is hereby quashed and learned trial Court is direc...
Smt. Kamla Bajaj Vs Sh. Rakesh Bansiwal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner challenging order (undated), passed by Additional Senior Civil Judge, Delhi, vide which application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 8A & 10 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short as Code), has been dismissed.2. Brief facts are that Shop No.7, Indian Oil Bhawan, New Janpath Market, New Delhi was allotted to late Sh. Sohan Lal Bansiwal on licence basis in the year 1970. On 8.11.1982, Sohan Lal Bansiwal being the original allottee expired, leaving behind number of legal heirs including petitioner. Respondents No.1 to 3, filed a suit for possession, mesne profit, permanent and mandatory injunction in respect of that shop against Respondents No.4 to 10. During pendency of the suit, petitioner filed an applicat...
Msm Discovery Private Limited Vs Viacom 18 Media Private Limited.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? 1. Writ Petition (C) No. 5109 of 2010 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the MSM Discovery Private Ltd. (`MSMD) challenges an interlocutory order dated 27th July 2010 passed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (`TDSAT) in Petition No. 220(C) of 2010 filed by Respondent No. 1 Viacom 18 Media Private Ltd. (`Viacom18). The TDSAT has, by the impugned interlocutory order, restrained the Petitioner MSMD from representing Viacom18 with any third party until further orders.2. Writ Petition (C) Nos. 5111 and 5112 of 2010 by Star Den Media Services Private Ltd. (STAR DEN) challenge the order dated 29th July 2010 passed by the TDSAT declining interim relief to STAR DEN in Petition No. 248(C) of 2010 while granting an interim relief in Petition No. 222(C) of 2010 filed by Television 18 India Ltd. ...
K.P.S. Dagur Vs Darshan Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
ORDER.1. The petitioner, Deputy General Manager, Domestic Resources Department (Customer Relation), Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. has challenged the summoning order dated 18th September, 2006, passed on a private criminal complaint made by the respondent, Mr. Dharshan Singh.2. This private complaint was filed on 10th February, 2006, inter alia, stating that the respondent had purchased a bond with a face value of Rs. 5,000/- on 22nd February, 1992, which was to be redeemed on 31st March, 2002 at a premium of 5% of the face value. The respondent was entitled to interest @ 15% per annum payable half yearly with effect from 31st March, 1992 till redemption. It is stated in the complaint that legal notice was served on the petitioner on 10th March, 2004 and thereafter the maturity proceeds of Rs. 5,250/- were paid. Thus, there was delay of two years in payment of the maturity proceeds. The second allegation made in the complaint is that the respondent wrote a letter dated 24th ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »