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.
Jagatjit Jaiswal and anr. Vs Karamjit Singh Jaswal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER.1. By these Orders, we shall dispose of CM No.l7175/2007 dated 12.12.2007 filed by the Appellants for appropriate orders, inter alia, restraining the Respondents from discontinuing their salary, perks and benefits; and for restraining the Respondents from transferring, pledging, creating any third party rights, parting with possession or otherwise dealing with in any manner whatsoever the shares detailed in the Annexure. On the first date of hearing, that is, 14.12.2007, the following Order was passed:Issue notice. Learned counsel for the respondents may file their Objections within six weeks. In the meantime order dated 25.8.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge shall continue to remain in operation subject to the appellants filing undertaking in this court that in case the appeal is eventually dism...
Paramjit Singh @ Bittoo Vs State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
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 the judgment should be reported in the digest? (Yes) ORDER.1.The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 21st January, 1997 for murdering one Vijay and causing injuries to his brother PW-11 Vinod Kumar in an incident which took place on 22nd March, 1992 and vide order dated 24th January, 1997 they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence of murder and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for their conviction under Section 324/34 IPC. Accused-appellant Paramjit Singh was further convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act also and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Out of the three convicted accused, who are brothers, two accused, namely, Ravin...
Wheels India Vs Nirmal Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO2. To be referred to Reporter or not? NO3. Whether the judgment should be NO reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. The appellant filed a suit for infringement of trademark, passing off, rendition of accounts etc. against the respondents in respect of wheel covers for use in motor vehicles and other allied and cognate goods being used as accessories in such motor vehicles under the trademark 'PRINCE'. The appellant also filed an application seeking interim relief under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the said Code' for short). The claim of the appellant was predicated on a registered trade mark since 27.09.2004 with the allegation that the respondents had come into the trade subsequently to tarnish the reputation and goodwill of the appellant. An interim order was granted in favour of the appellant on 02.06.2006. However, on the respondents moving an application under Order 39 Rule 4 o...
Parvinder Vs the State of Nct Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
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 the Digest ?ORDER1. The appellant-Parvinder has been convicted under Section 392 read with Section 397 of the Indian penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to IPC, for short) and has been sentenced with rigorous imprisonment of seven years and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default undergo further rigorous imprisonment of three months. The appellant-Vikas has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3 1/2 years and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 392 IPC.2. On 3rd November, 2003, Mr. Mahesh Kant Jha, who was working as a security guard at Najafgarh Road was returning to his house at about 9 p.m.via railway track near West Patel Nagar Railway Station along with his nephew Mr. Hem Kant Jha. They stopped near the railway station track as a goods...
Focus Brands Trading (India) Pvt Ltd and anr.Vs Campari International ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment Yes2. To be referred to Reporters or not Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in the Digest ?ORDER. (under Section 45 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act by deft.nos.1 & 2)1. By this common order, I propose to dispose of the captioned applications which have been filed by defendant nos 1 and 2 under Section 45 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 1996 Act). Before I proceed further, it may perhaps be relevant as well as convenient to broadly allude to the contours of the case.2. In the action filed by the plaintiffs there are four parties impleaded. The four parties are: plaintiff no.1 i.e., Focus Brands Trading (India) Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as Focus); plaintiff no.2 i.e., Jubilant Enpro Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as Jubilant); defendant no.1 i.e., Campari International S.A.M. (hereinafter referred to as Campari); and defendant no.2 ...
Mrs. Flora Bose Vs Suproti Bose.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
(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? Yes 1. Under challenge in this appeal is the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge dated 8th April, 1997 whereby the petition of the appellant filed under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed.2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that parties to the petition were married on 8.12.1974 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. One male child Ankur Bose was borne out of the wedlock on 7.8.1978. Respondent is an alcoholic. Many a times he remained out of job and under the influence of liquor and even otherwise he used to treat the petitioner with cruelty. Respondent had to vacate the rental premises on account of non payment of rent and petitioner had to depend for financial support on her parents. Respondent had stopped taking care of the family needs. After...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri Bajrang Lal Bansal.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NoORDER:1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity "Act, 1961") challenging the order dated 31st March, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "Tribunal") in IT(SSA) No. 262/Del/2004, for the block period 1st April, 1989 to 17th December, 1999.2. The relevant facts of the present case are that a search was conducted at the respondent-assessee's residence by the Income Tax Department. While unexplained cash of ` 68,943/- and FDR of ` 54,943/- was found during the search, no evidence was found suggesting a higher valuation for the property bearing No. A-156, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. However, the Assessing Officer solely on the basis of report of the District Valuation Officer made an addition of ` 99,33,000/- under Section 69B of the Act,...
Vinod Kumar Vs the State (Nct) of Delhi.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
ORDER1 Appellant Vinod Kumar has been convicted under Section 397/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of seven years and fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 397/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months. The applicant has been further sentenced under Section 411/34 IPC with rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.2 The story of the prosecution is that Mr. Jaspal Singh, driver and Mr. Jagtar Singh @ Jagga, cleaner had reached Delhi on 22nd February, 2001 at about 10.00 PM in truck No. PCK 597 from Mandi Govind Garh with bags of foam and iron items. They had unloaded the bags of foam at Shastri Nagar and had come to Naraina opposite Shop No.22/8 on the main road. Mr. Jaspal Singh, the driver went to make a telephone call to Mr. Raj Kumar to whom the goods were to...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Mahesh Kumar.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NoORDER: CM 14504/2010 IN ITA 1191/2010 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.1. The present two appeals have been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity "Act, 1961") challenging the order dated 25th June, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "Tribunal") in ITA Nos. 1785/Del/2008 and 1042/Del/2008, for the Assessment Year 2004-2005.2. It is pertinent to mention that by the impugned order, the appeal of the assessee was allowed whereas cross-appeal of the revenue was dismissed. Since both the appeals have been decided by a common judgment, the present appeals are also being disposed of by a common order.3. The relevant fact of the present case are that the respondent- assessee had purchased two properties bearing Plot Nos. 218 and 219 in Block B, Sector 8, Bagdolla ...
Subhash Chander Garg Vs Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
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. The prayers made by the writ petitioner in OA No.1141/2007 are as under:- "In view of the facts mentioned in para 6 above the Applicant prays of the following reliefs:i. Quash and set aside order dated 14.3.2007.ii. Order and declare that the Applicant is entitled for counting his past services for the purposes of Pension, leaves gratuity etc. as per CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 rendered at National Informatics Centre, Planning Commission, Government of India w.e.f. 10.12.1985 to 27.10.1988 and at the National Horticulture Board, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India w.e.f. 28.10.1988 to 15.9.2004 for the purposes of Pension, leaves, gratuity etc. as per CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and would be entitled to be covered by Old Pension Scheme under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.iii. Any other order which this Hon'b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »