Delhi Court September 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 3 of about 113 results (0.019 seconds)Brijendra and anr Vs State
Court: Delhi
ORDER.1. I have heard the counsel for the parties. The respondent Delhi Police has filed status reports as well as reply affidavit.2. As per the respondents, on 17th September, 2007 on the basis of secret information, nakabandi was done and at about 9.15 P.M. and two persons were seen coming from D Block, Nand Nagri. The informer pointed out and identified the said two persons. They were stopped and were asked to identify themselves. They gave their names as Om Prakash and Bijender. As it was suspected that they were carrying narcotics, a written notice under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act for short) was served on Om Prakash. In the meanwhile persons from nearby gathered at the spot and started obstructing and pelting stone at the policemen. Bijender ran away from the spot but Om Prakash was apprehended. The allegation of the prosecution is that on search of Om Prakash, a transparent polythene bag containing brownish material was recove...
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!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!Gurmeet Singh Vs State Nct of Delhi.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes1. These two petitions, one criminal revision petition and one criminal misc petition, have been preferred by Police Inspector Mr. Gurmeet Singh in view of the judgment delivered by learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.93 of 2008, FIR No. 128 of 2005, Police Station Gokulpuri, under Section 376 (2) (g) read with Section 34 of IPC. Inspector Gurmeet Singh was the SHO of Police Station Gokul Puri at the time of incident. The learned Sessions Judge in his judgment gave following directions: "24. Before parting, disquieting features of the case are to be noted. As detailed above, Darshan Kumar ASI suppressed facts and prepared incorrect records in the form of DD No.76B and Kalandra Ex.CW1/A, in connivance with Gurmeet Singh, Inspector, then SHO PS Gokulpuri, with an intent to screen Raj Kumar and his a...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Mace Plastronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Registrar of Companies.
Court: Delhi
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 the Digest? No ORDER.1. This petition under S.560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, seeks restoration of the name of the petitioner company to the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies. M/s Mace Plastronics Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 19th June, 1985 vide Certificate of Incorporation No. 21262 as a private limited company with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana.2. The Registrar of Companies, i.e the respondent herein, struck the petitioners name off the Register due to defaults in statutory compliances, namely, failure to file annual returns and balance sheets in respect of the financial years 1999-2000 to 2006- 2007. Consequently, the respondent initiated proceedings under S.560 of the Companies Act, 1956, for the purpose of striking the petitioners na...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam Charitable Trust, Sut Academy of Medical Sc ...
Court: Delhi
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 No in the Digest?ORDER.1. The petitioner by this writ petition challenges the order dated 23 rd September, 2010 of the Board of Governors in Supersession of the Medical Council of India (MCI), refusing permission to the petitioner to admit students for MBBS course in the current academic session. The erstwhile MCI had in the year 2006 granted permission to the petitioner to set up a Medical College. The petitioner in pursuance to the said permission admitted students to the MBBS courses in the year 2006. Thereafter in the years 2007, 2008 & 2009, the permissions were granted to the petitioner to admit students. The petitioner applied for permission to admit students for the current academic year also. The petitioner claims that its Institute was inspected by the erstwhile MCI. However, in the interregnum, vide Gazette Notifica...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Labhu Lal. Vs Smt. Sandhya GuptA.
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 reportedin the Digest? YesORDER.1. Present revision petition under Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short as Act) has been filed against impugned order dated 13th July, 2010 passed by Additional Rent Controller (for short as Controller) Delhi, vide which application for leave to defend of petitioner was dismissed and eviction order has been passed.2. Brief facts are that, respondent filed an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) read with section 25-B of the Act for recovery of possession of portion on the ground floor of property no. 81-A, Kamla Nagar, Delhi as shown in red in the site plan attached with the petition. It is stated that premises in suit are required bonafide by respondent (owner/landlady) for her own use and for the use of her family members for expanding their business of Diagnostic Clinic and/...
Tag this Judgment!Andaleeb Sehgal Vs Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
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 petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the notifications dated 11.11.2005 issued by the respondent No.1, Union of India, vide Annexures 3 and 4 to the writ petition and further to lancet the rule framed on 20.1.2006 by the respondent No.2, the same being unconstitutional. A further prayer was made for restraining the respondent No.2 from publishing any finding against the petitioner, the same being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Section 8 B of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 (for brevity "the Act").2. A Division Bench hearing the matter had formulated the following three questions for consideration:"(i) Is the Constitution of a fact finding inquiry commission...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Megha Manchanda Vs Saurabh Sharma
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 reportedin the Digest? YesORDER:1. By this appeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 the appellant seeks to set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.7.2009 whereby a decree of restitution of conjugal rights was passed in favour of the respondent and against the appellant.2. Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present appeal are that both the parties got married on 27.04.2005 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Jamuna Bazar , Delhi and the marriage was registered on 12.05.05 vide registration certificate dated 12.05.05 at Delhi. That on the pretext of the brother of the appellant visiting from Australia the parents of the appellant called her to the parental house and she never returned thereafter. Consequently the respondent filed a petition under section 97 Cr.P.C which was dismissed. The appellant on the other...
Tag this Judgment!Virender Singh and ors. Vs Financial Commissioner and ors.
Court: Delhi
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 No in the Digest?ORDER.1. The two petitioners by this writ petition impugn the order dated 19th October, 2007 of the Financial Commissioner in exercise of powers under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. This Court while issuing notice of the petition, vide order dated 3rd December, 2007 directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to title, possession and construction on the subject land. The said order was confirmed on 25th February, 2009. Neither of the respondents have filed counter affidavit inspite of opportunities. The counsels have been heard.2. The dispute arose from the re-partition proceedings under Section 21(1) of the Act aforesaid in village Rawta, Delhi. The respondent no.2 on 25th June, 2002 applied to the Consolidation Officer stating that ...
Tag this Judgment!