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.
indraprastha Medical Corp. Ltd. Vs State Nct of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
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.ORDER.1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of order dated 19th December, 2007, passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate in a complaint case under section 336/337/471 read with section 34 IPC qua the petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner Indraprastha Medical Corporation Limited was a company incorporated under Companies Act and the company being only a juristic person was incapable of committing a crime of medical negligence, because it involved personal negligent act.2. A complaint was filed before the learned M.M. against the petitioner company and the Doctors involved in the treatment of deceased wherein it was alleged that deceased died due to gross medical negligence of the Doctors. It is also submitted that Doctors involved in treatment advised wrong/superfluous treatment...
Pradeep Kumar and anr. Vs State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
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 petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.425/2004 lodged against them by the respondent No.2, whose father is a tenant of part of the first floor of premises bearing No.8673, Siddiqui Manzil, Bahargarh, Roshanara Road, Delhi, owned by them. On the basis of the complaint, an FIR was registered with Police Station: Subzi Mandi. 2. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioners that the genesis of the dispute between the parties is the tenanted premises under the occupation of father of the respondent No.2 and his family. The details of the pending litigations between the parties have been set out in the Agreement dated 03.07.2009, entered into between the petitioners and the father of respondent No.2 (Annexure-C). Counsel ...
Criminal Justice Society Vs Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment?Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ORDER.1.The seminal and centroidal issues that emanate for consideration in this public interest litigation preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Criminal Justice Society, is whether the wife of a septuagenarian is entitled to compensation for his accidental death caused due to the fall in a pit on the divider which was required to be covered by a barricade with warning signs meant for pedestrians by the contractor, the respondent No.4 herein, engaged by the respondent No.2 - Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short the MCD), and if the answer is in the affirmative, the further aspect that has to be dwelled upon is what should be the appropriate quantum, regard being had to the relevant factors like age of the deceased, the negligence of an agent of a statutory authority and the shock...
Sh. Ashok Kumar Mehra and ors. Vs Shri Kuldeep Kumar Mehra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
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.This revision petition under Section 25B (8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short Act) has been filed by the petitioners against judgment dated 17th September, 2009, passed by Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, vide which respondents eviction petition was allowed and eviction order was passed in favour of respondent and against the present petitioners.2. Brief facts are that respondent (Petitioner-Landlord in the trial court) filed an eviction petition in respect of one room, one verandah, one store, one kitchen, one bathroom, one latrine, one room with asbestos sheet roof in the court yard, open court yard on the ground of floor and two rooms, one kitchen, covered terrace on the first floor of the building bearing No. XIV/11152/8, Rashid Ahmed Building, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi; against pet...
M/S Kalucha Paper House and anr. Vs M/S Mahavir Papers 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. The present petition has been preferred against an order dated 17th September, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowing a revision of the respondent against order dated 25th April, 2009 passed by learned ACMM. The contention of the petitioners is that dismissal of the complaint after summoning of the accused amounted to acquittal of the accused and only an appeal would lie under Section 378 Cr.P.C. The petitioner have relied upon Kalpana Tyagi vs. Sneh Lata Sharma; 2003 (2) DCR 96 and Kishan Kumar Gupta vs. Mohammed Jaros & Anr.; 2003 (1) RCR 127.2. Both the above cited cases relied upon by the petitioners are of the period when amendment to Negotiable Instruments Act had not been made and the cases under Negotiable Instruments Act were summon trial cases. However, after the amendment in Negotiable Ins...
Om Parkash Vs Cbi
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. The present revision petition under Section 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed against the charge framed against the petitioner by the Special Judge-01 (CBI), Rohini Courts, Delhi.2. At the very outset, counsel for the CBI submitted that a revision petition against framing of charge by the Special Judge, CBI was barred under Section 19 (3) (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended) wherein it is provided that no court shall exercise power of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings. This court had considered the issue whether a revision would lie or not against charge under Prevention of Corruption Act in Dharamvir Khattar & Ors. v. CBI; 2009 IV AD (Delhi) 657 and after discussing numerous judgments of this court and Apex court had c...
Commissioner of Income Tax-iv Vs Dhawan Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Whether the 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 the Digest? No 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity "Act, 1961") challenging the order dated 15th May, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "ITAT") in ITA No. 787/Del/2009, for the Assessment Year 2003- 2004.2. Mr. N.P. Sahni, learned counsel for Revenue submitted that the ITAT had erred in law in deleting the addition of Rupees Sixteen Lacs made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of Act, 1961. He contended that the assessee had failed to discharge the burden as envisaged under Section 68 of Act, 1961 in respect of genuineness of the transactions relating to unexplained share capital.3. However, on a perusal of impugned order, we find that ample evidence was led by the assessee to prove the identity and genuineness of the share applican...
Hindustan Photofilms Manufacturing Co Ltd. Vs M/S Anu Enterprises and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers YES may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? YES3. Whether the judgment should be YES reported in the Digest?ORDER1. The plaintiff seeks a decree for the sum of Rs.2,39,47,194.27 against the defendants. The first defendant is a registered partnership firm of which the other two defendants are partners (defendants hereafter are collectively referred as `M/s Anu Enterprises').2. The suit averments are that the plaintiff carries on business of manufacture and sale of photo Sensitised Products including still photo products and graphics arts photo products. On 30.07.1984 and 01.08.1984, the plaintiff constituted Anu Enterprises as its stockiest in respect of two types of products and entered into agreement which were initially for five years and later renewed in 1989 for a further period of five years. In terms of the agreements, the dealings between the plaintiff and Anu Enterprises on a principal-to-principal basis....
Uoi Thr. Secretary Ministry of Defence Vs Indian Navy Civilian Design ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. To meet the functional requirements of the Indian Navy regarding specific assignments of the naval dockyards, technical directors of naval headquarters and training establishments the cadre of design officers in the Indian Navy was created in the year 1965.2. The drawing staff in the Navy was put into two diverse disciplines. The first was in the construction, electrical, engineering and armament discipline. Group-B gazetted posts in the disciplines of construction, electrical and engineering were created and the officers were designated as junior design officers (JDO). The second division was armament in which posts designated as civilian technical officers (CTO Design) were created.3. Since inception, for purposes of direct recruitment, the educational qualification required for the post of JDO was a degree ...
Commissioner of Income Tax-iv Vs M/S. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Whether the 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 the Digest? YesAllowed, subject to all just exceptions. For the reasons stated in the applications, delay in re-filing the appeals is condoned. Applications stand disposed of.1. The present appeals have been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity "Act, 1961") challenging the common order dated 29th May, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "ITAT") in ITA Nos. 4799/Del/04 and 4800/Del/04, for the Assessment Year 2001-2002. Since similar issue is involved in both the appeals, we are passing a common order. However, for the purpose of noting the facts, we are referring to ITA No. 911/2010.2. The relevant facts are that the respondent-assessee was incorporated on 23rd March, 1985. It was engaged in the business of financing and trading of shares. On 22nd October, 2001, assessee...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »