Delhi Court September 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 2 of about 113 results (0.023 seconds)Lt.Governor of Delhi Vs S.C.Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
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. Two Original Applications being OA No.452/2002 and OA No.453/2002 have been disposed of by a common order dated 06.04.2004. The first respondent in the two Original Applications is the writ petitioner before us and the applicants of the two Original Applications are respondent No.1 before us.2. At a common enquiry against respondent No.1 of the two writ petitions and other officers in the Engineering Department in the Irrigation and Flood Department, in which one set of witnesses were examined, but separate reports submitted by the enquiry officer; the reports being pari material in substance, the respondent No.1 of both writ petitions were indicted and after obtaining the advice from the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) but not communicating the advice to the respondent No.1 penalty imposed on both was of ...
Tag this Judgment!Amit NaraIn Misra Vs State and anr.
Court: Delhi
ORDER.1 This case has a chequered history. An application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code, for short) was filed by the respondent No. 2 in Patiala House Courts on 18th November, 2006. The petitioner was served and had appeared before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. He had filed his written statement. Subsequently, the matter was transferred to District Courts Dwarka. The petitioner was not served with any notice from the Court, to which the matter was transferred. He was proceeded ex-parte and vide ex parte order dated 31st July, 2009 the application under Section 125 of the Code was disposed of with direction to the petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent No. 2 with retrospective effect from the date of the filing of the application. 2. The respondent No. 2 filed a revision petition against this order for enhancement of maintenance. Petitioner was served in the said revision petition and contested. Relying upon judgme...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil Kumar Vs Ibm India Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
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 Yes reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. All the above noted petitions are being disposed of together as the facts involved there in are similar inasmuch, the question of law raised is also same.2. Petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have been filed by the petitioner praying therein that the complaints filed by respondent No. 1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Act") be quashed.3. In the compliant, petitioner has been arrayed as accused No. 4 being Chief Operating Officer of respondent No. 2, besides the Managing Director and Chief Financial Officer who have been arrayed as accused Nos. 2 and 3. In paras 2 and 8 of the complaint it has been averred as under: Para 2 "------- Accused No. 2 is the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of ...
Tag this Judgment!Cadila Healthcare Ltd. Vs Diat Foods (India).
Court: Delhi
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 bereported in the Digest? YesORDER.1. The appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining passing off of the trademark SUGAR FREE, its dilution, damages and rendition of accounts, delivery up, etc. The appellant claimed that in the year 1988, a low calorie table-top sweetener without natural sugar containing an artificial sweetener was introduced under the trademark SUGAR FREE. This product contained Aspartame which contains only 2% of its calories. The applications filed for registration of the trademark were pending. The sales have been large and from 1988 onwards, around Rs.216.40 crores sales have occurred.2. The appellant alleged that the respondent had introduced Sugar Free Cookies with SUGAR FREE written in big size fonts in bright red colour. It is this SUGAR FREE, which has been emphasized while Cookies is written i...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil Kumar Vs Ibm India Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papersmay be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be Yes reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. All the above noted petitions are being disposed of together as the facts involved there in are similar inasmuch, the question of law raised is also same.2. Petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have been filed by the petitioner praying therein that the complaints filed by respondent No. 1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Act") be quashed.3. In the compliant, petitioner has been arrayed as accused No. 4 being Chief Operating Officer of respondent No. 2, besides the Managing Director and Chief Financial Officer who have been arrayed as accused Nos. 2 and 3. In paras 2 and 8 of the complaint it has been averred as under: Para 2 "------- Accused No. 2 is the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer ofB ...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate Bank. Vs M/S. Mullangie Spintex Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
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? Yes ORDER.1. The claim of the petitioner bank to have the exclusive right to appropriate the insurance amount received in respect of the hypothecated stocks and raw materials without making a reference or obtaining prior permission of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short, BIFR), despite a pending reference before the BIFR, has given rise to these proceedings.2. Respondent No. 1 company is engaged in the business of cotton yarn and availed of working capital limit from the petitioner bank from 1996 onwards against hypothecated stocks, raw materials, etc. The petitioner bank had the exclusive first charge as per a Deed of Hypothecation and under the terms of the insurance policy securing the goods read with the Deed of Hypothecation, the petitioner bank was entitled to receive the amo...
Tag this Judgment!Sh.Pawan Kumar Vs State (Govt. of Nct) of Delhi .
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO the Digest?ORDER.This is an application by the appellant/applicant seeking suspension of his sentence and to release him on bail during the pendency of the appeal. The appellant Pawan Kumar has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for allegedly murdering his alleged friend Prem Chand by judgment and orders 23rd January, 2010 and 28th January, 2010 in SC No.51/1 titled State v. Pawan Kumar in FIR No.390/01 P.S.Punjabi Bagh under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.The applicant has contended that he is a poor person aged about 39 years having three minor children-two minor daughters aged 14 years and 10 years and one minor son aged 6 years and a wife to look after. He has also alleged that he is the sole bread winner of his family and he is not a previous convict and has clean antecedents. It is asserted on...
Tag this Judgment!Parveen. Vs State of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
ORDER.1. Learned counsel for the State prays for and is granted permission to place on record status report. As per the status report, last FIR was registered against the petitioner in November, 1998. Thereafter, one calandra under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. was registered on 3rd June, 1999, but the petitioner was discharged. However, on 4 th November, 2005 proceeding under Section 110(G) Cr.P.C. was initiated to bound down the petitioner for good behavior as he was an habitual offender. Full details of these proceedings are not available. It may be noted that as per the status report, the petitioner has been acquitted in three cases and in one case, FIR No. 165/1998, proceedings are still pending trial.2. The question of entries in surveillance register in bundle A and B has been subject matter of decision in Sarjeet Singh versus Commissioner of Police and Others, 2002 CRL.L.J. 3824. The Division Bench has explained the purpose of the entries in the surveillance register and observed: "1...
Tag this Judgment!Cadila Healthcare Ltd. Vs Diat Foods (India)
Court: Delhi
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 bereported in the Digest? Yes ORDER.1. The appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining passing off of the trademark SUGAR FREE, its dilution, damages and rendition of accounts, delivery up, etc. The appellant claimed that in the year 1988, a low calorie table-top sweetener without natural sugar containing an artificial sweetener was introduced under the trademark SUGAR FREE. This product contained Aspartame which contains only 2% of its calories. The applications filed for registration of the trademark were pending. The sales have been large and from 1988 onwards, around Rs.216.40 crores sales have occurred.2. The appellant alleged that the respondent had introduced Sugar Free Cookies with SUGAR FREE written in big size fonts in bright red colour. It is this SUGAR FREE, which has been emphasized while Cookies is written i...
Tag this Judgment!Narcotics Control Bureau Vs Amit Kohli and anr.
Court: Delhi
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?These two petitions have been filed by the petitioner Narcotics Control Bureau for cancellation of the bail of the respondents who were booked by the petitioner under Section 22, 23, 24 & 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short NDPS Act). The learned Special Judge, NDPS passed a detailed order in respect of the bail of Diwakar Gupta and Amit Kohli thereafter when the application of Nafe Singh and Rajesh Sharma came, he relied upon his earlier order of Diwakar Gupta and granted bail to Nafe Singh and Rajesh Sharma also. Thus, the accused persons were granted bail vide orders dated December, 2008 and January, 2009.2. As per allegations the accused persons were found in possession of tablets - Diazapam, Lorazepam, Alprazolam, Clonazepan & Phenobarbitone. The report of CSFL had shown that presence of h...
Tag this Judgment!