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.
Ramesh Vs State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
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. This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the applicant /accused for grant of regular bail who is facing trial under Sections 302/365/201/120-B read with Section 34 IPC.2. The present application is made by the accused on the ground that the accused was in judicial custody since 27th November 2007 and nineteen witnesses had already been examined during trial and nothing incriminating has come against the accused.3. A perusal of the chargesheet and the case of the prosecution would show that the entire case against accused was based on circumstantial evidence. One of the circumstances against accused/applicant is of last seen with the deceased. The prosecution witnesses, cited by the prosecution at the time of filing the chargesheet, have not turned hostile during their testimony and nothing ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Rice India Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.1. The present two appeals have been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity "Act, 1961") challenging the order dated 27th November, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "ITAT") in ITA Nos. 2233/Del/2008 and 2444/Del/2008 by virtue of which appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue were disposed of with regard to the Assessment Year 2005- 2006.2. Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal, learned counsel for Revenue submitted that the respondent-assessee had over-invoiced its purchases with an intent to inflate its purchases and reduce its profits. She submitted that the respondent-assessee could not substantiate with any evidence the purchases from Mr. Sanjay Kumar Garg. She pointed out that th respondent-assessee did not produce Mr. Sanjay Kumar Garg whose affidavit the assesse...
Mohd.Ajeem Vs State Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
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. 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short 'the Act') praying inter alia for setting aside the order dated 3.4.2010 passed by the learned ASJ, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 7-A of the Act for transferring his case to the Juvenile Justice Court in case FIR No.79/2007 lodged with PS Ambedkar Nagar under Section 302/34 IPC.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a FIR was registered on the complaint of one Shri Anish Malik with PS Ambedkar Nagar on 30.1.2007, stating inter alia that the petitioner and another accused, namely Salim, had an altercation with one Shri Sakir, known very well to the complainant, and the...
Jeet Lal Vs the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
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. This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 17th July, 2010 passed by Shri B.S. Chumbhak, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi confirming the judgment dated 8th April, 2010 and order on sentence dated 16th April, 2010 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicting the petitioner under Section 279/304A IPC in case FIR No.115 of 1996 dated 24th February 1996.2. The sole ground pressed by the counsel for petitioner is that the two courts below committed grave illegality in inferring negligence when there was no direct evidence of negligence of the petitioner.3. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was driver of the truck at the time of accident. PW-5 and the deceased both were walking on foot alongside the road w...
Sanjay Gupta and ors. Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. Whether the 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?ORDER.1. The Mount Everest Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited has a chequered history with large number of inter se litigations between members, members and society, inquiries into the financial affairs and allegations of money being siphoned off. There are stated to be proceedings pending in respect of various aspects but in so far as these writ petitions are concerned, the controversy is limited to the allotment of flats to members.2. We may note that there were 120 members and 120 flats were constructed, but, in respect of 40 flats, two flats each have been con jointed making them into 20 four bed room flats instead of the original 40 two bed room flats each. The result is that there are 40 two bed room flats, 40 three bed room flats and 20 flats of 4 bed rooms (which have been made by conjoining of the t...
Shri Anil Anand and ors. Vs State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
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? Present petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 40/09 registered against the petitioners under Section 420/465/468/471 IPC at PS Sector 55, Faridabad (Haryana). It is petitioners' own case that this FIR was registered on 21st January, 2009 and thereafter investigation was conducted by police of Faridabad and a report was filed by the Investigating Officer that no offence was committed by the petitioners. A copy of report dated 11th May, 2009 in Hindi with English translation has been placed on record wherein it is categorically stated that the matter related to Company Law Board and had nothing to do with IPC and there was no substance found in the complaint. It is submitted that after filing of this report and agreeing that the matter related to Company Law Board, a fresh investigation was started ...
Smt. Birmati Vs Sh. Iqbal Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
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 reported in the Digest? YesORDER.1.Petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 read with 226 of the Constitution of India, against order dated 29.3.2010 passed by the Additional District judge, Delhi vide which application of respondent under Order 23 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short as Code) seeking permission to withdraw/abandon a part of the claim, was allowed.2. Brief facts are that, respondent filed suit for Specific Performance of Contract and Permanent Injunction against present petitioner, making following prayer:-"a) Pass a decree of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 08.09.2009 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, whereby directing the defendant to obtain the possession on spot from the DDA and get the conveyance deed executed in her favour and thereafter execute...
Karm Kumar Vs Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
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 in Digest? Yes .The Issue1. Can an Overseas Citizen of India ( OCI') or a Person of Indian WP(C) Nos.4148 & 4263/2010 Page 1 of 31 Origin ( PIO') claim a right to represent India in an international sporting event? This is the question that arises for consideration in these two petitions, which also involve inter alia the interpretation of Sections 7A(1) and 7B of the Citizenship Act, 1955 ( the Act'). The Petitioners challenge the policy of the Government of India in the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (MYAS), Respondent No.3, as evidenced by its impugned communication dated 26 th December 2008 followed by the clarification dated 12th March 2009 to the effect that only Indian passport holders will be permitted to represent India in international sports events.2. Karm Kumar, the petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No. 4148...
Union of India Vs Om Prakash Malik and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? (No)2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? (No)3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? (No)This appeal was filed by the Union of India against the judgment dated 15th January, 2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi while deciding a reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. That reference came to be made at the instance of the land owner, the respondent no. 1 herein, whose land in village Mandavali, which was sought to be acquired vide notification dated 13 th November, 1959 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act followed by the notification dated 12th July, 1966 under Section 6. Award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on 22nd December, 1982. The Reference Court disposed of the reference by the impugned judgment and gave some enhancement in the compensation to the land owner relying upon one judgment of this Court in RFA No. 311/74...
Gurpreet Singh Vs M/S Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
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. By the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C the petitioner sought quashing of an order dated 17th March, 2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge in a revision whereby he allowed revision of respondent herein against the order of learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 22nd May, 2007 dismissing a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The main ground of attack made by the petitioner against the order of learned Sessions Judge is that the order of dismissal of complaint passed by learned MM amounted to acquittal of the petitioner and no revision was maintainable against the order of acquittal and only an appeal was maintainable. 3. I have perused the orders passed by learned MM after summoning of accused. A perusal of these orders would show that the learned MM proceeded with the case as if it was a su...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »