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.
National Small Industries Corporation Ltd.Vs. Singer India Ltd, and an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2010
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 YES reported in the Digest?ORDER1.The petitioner is a Government Corporation duly incorporated and registered under the provisions of the WP (C) No. 7341 of 2009 Page 1 of 16 Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of promotion and development of small-scale industries. The petitioner was holding a stake of about 7.76% of the equity capital of respondent No. 1 company which went into financial difficulties resulting in proceedings under The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985 ( for short, the SICA ). Respondent No. 1 was registered as a sick company as its net worth stood eroded and respondent No. 2 bank was appointed as the operating agency. The background of the investment in share capital of respondent No. 1 company by the petitioner has been set out. Respondent No. 1 company is the successor-in- interest o...
Rachna KathuriA.Vs. Ramesh KathuriA.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2010
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. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has assailed an order dated 22nd October 2009 of learned Additional Sessions Judge passed in appeal whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.2. The petitioner filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short the Act) and along with it she filed an application under Section 29 of the Act seeking maintenance. The learned Court of MM observed that petitioner was living separate from her husband since 3rd January, 1996. She had filed a Civil Suit under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Crl.M.C.No. 130/2010 Page 1 of 3 she was getting a total maintenance of ` 4000/- per month from the respondent. In case the petitioner felt that maintenance a...
Siddarth VarmA.Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation,(Cbi).
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2010
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. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing order dated 6th January, 2006 of the learned Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi, whereby an application of the petitioner for his discharge from the case was dismissed by the learned Special Judge. 2. The petitioner's father and petitioner were arrayed as accused persons in this case by CBI. The petitioner's father was arrayed as accused for possessing disproportionate assets and was charged by the trial court under Section 13(1) (e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, W.P. (Crl.) No. 368 of 2010 Page 1 of 4 1988, and the petitioner was charged under Section 109 of IPC read with Section 13(2) and 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act. During the pendency of proceedings, father of the petitioner expired on 8th August, 2005. Thus, criminal pr...
Baharat @ Popat, Vinay,and ors.Vs. State Govt. of Nct Delhi,and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2010
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? ORDER1. By this common order, I shall dispose of these five bail applications preferred by the accused persons/ petitioners who are booked in FIR No.54 of 2007 under Sections 3(2) and 3(4) of MCOCA Act and are facing trial. The accused persons are in jail for about last three years and the trial is going on.2. A perusal of record would show that the accused Vijay was involved in 30 cases at different police stations in Delhi. These cases are of theft, Arms Act, NDPS Act and Bail Appln Nos.1943.09,684.10,2422.09,156.10 & 683.10 Page 2 Of 7 preparation of decoity. The majority of cases are of theft. Accused Baharat was involved in 15 cases of similar nature. Accused Rajesh @ Dil Dil was involved in 37 cases mostly of theft and criminal assault while committing theft, one case of attempt to murder and one under Excise Act, one c...
Sadanand Sharma Vs. Union of India Through the General Manager and Oth ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2010
Honourable Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Applicant has challenged order dated 20.10.2004 whereby Shri B.C. Nagar was promoted and order dated 14.7.2010 (page 18) whereby his request for promotion w.e.f. 1.11.2003 under restructuring has been rejected. He has further sought a direction to the respondents to consider him for promotion as given to Shri Phool Singh and grant him consequential benefits. 2.It is stated by the applicant that he was initially appointed as Clerk in Ferozpur Division on 2.9.1971 but was later transferred to Delhi Division in 1972. He was promoted as Head Clerk w.e.f. 1.1.1984 as Office Superintendent Grade-II on 29.4.1994/24.11.1995 and Office Superintendent Grade-I in the grade of Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f. 23.11.1997. 3.Railway Board issued restructuring orders on 10.5.1998 whereby 3 additional posts of Chief Office Superintendent (hereinafter referred as COS) as in the grade of Rs.7450-11500 were sanctioned but they were not implemented. On 9.10.2003 restructuri...
Vijay Aggarwal.Vs. Emirates Bank Internationals,
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
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. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the respondent on the ground that summoning of petitioner was not warranted by the facts as disclosed in the complaint.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the complainant M/s. Emirates Bank International (respondent) filed a criminal complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra against petitioner and three more persons, all close relatives of the petitioner, under Sections 415/418/420 read with Section 120-B and Section 34 IPC. The learned Judicial Magistrate at Ahmednagar after recording pre-summoning evidence took cognizance of the offence and summoned all the four respondents inclu...
S.K. Lakhina, S.K. Pathrella,and ors.Vs. C.B.i. Thru. State,and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
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. These Revision Petitions have been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 3rd December, 2005 passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI), directing framing of charges under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.2. After the order directing framing of charge, charges were framed against the accused persons. The Petitioners/accused persons during the pendency of these Revision Petitions, prayed for conversion of these Revision Petitions into Writ Petitions under Article 227 of Constitution of India, in view of decision of this Court in Dharamvir Khattar vs. CBI. At the request, the Registry was directed to register and re-number these Revision Petitions as Writ Petitions (Crl...
Abaskar Consruction Pvt Ltd.Vs. Land and Development Officer and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
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 in Digest? No 1. Both these petitions arise out of a judgment of this Court in an earlier round of litigation and involve similar issues. Accordingly, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The background to the present petitions is that plots of land, situated in the vicinity of Connaught Place and India Gate, were auctioned. In respect each of the plots, a separate perpetual lease deed with identical terms was executed in favour of the auction purchasers by the then Secretary of State for India in Council through the then Chief Commissioner, Delhi. In terms of the said lease deeds a single-storeyed residential house was constructed on many of the plots. Thereafter, when the construction of multi-storeyed buildings commenced in the city of Delhi, one of the issues that arose was the terms on which the lessee c...
Vijay Aggarwal Vs Emirates Bank International
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
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. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the respondent on the ground that summoning of petitioner was not warranted by the facts as disclosed in the complaint.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the complainant M/s. Emirates Bank International (respondent) filed a criminal complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra against petitioner and three more persons, all close relatives of the petitioner, under Sections 415/418/420 read with Section 120-B and Section 34 IPC. The learned Judicial Magistrate at Ahmednagar after recording pre-summoning evidence took cognizance of the offence and summoned all the four respondents inclu...
Ram Chander Rathi.Vs. Rajinder Parshad .
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2010
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER1. This second appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2009 which had endorsed the finding of the Civil Judge dated 22.09.2006 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff on issue nos. 1,2 and 3.2. Briefly stated the factual matrix of the case is as follows:1. The plaintiff/appellant had filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction as also for recovery of damages. The defendant/respondent is stated to be the tenant under the appellant in respect of the suit property at the ground floor of Katra Rathi as shown in red colour in the site plan at a monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. The allegation was that the defendant had raised a platform in front of the shop which was shown in green colour in the said site plan. In July, 1997, the defendant had illegally and wrongfully encroached the platform a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »