Delhi Court September 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 4 of about 113 results (0.018 seconds)Master Ananya GuptA. Vs State and anr.
Court: Delhi
ORDER.1 These writ petitions are directed against order dated 25th September, 2010. I have heard the counsel for the parties at length and as limited issue arises for consideration these writ petitions are disposed of by this order.2. A charge sheet has been filed on conclusion of investigation in the First Information Report No.90/2000, Police Station Connaught Place. Mr. S.P. Gupta, Mr. Kaveen Gupta and Mr. Vipul Gupta have been summoned and are facing prosecution under Sections 420/406/409/468/471/477-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short). Arguments on the point of charge are yet to be addressed. It is alleged in the charge sheet as under:- ( a ) On 11th March, 1995 the accused persons had induced the complainant company M/s. VLS Finance Limited to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding and were obliged to subscribe to 70 lacs equity shares of M/s.Sun Air Hotels of face value of Rs.10/- each for cash at par. M/s. VLS Finance Limited was informed by the accused...
Tag this Judgment!Babita Gupta Vs State and anr.
Court: Delhi
ORDER1 These writ petitions are directed against order dated 25th September, 2010. I have heard the counsel for the parties at length and as limited issue arises for consideration these writ petitions are disposed of by this order.2. A charge sheet has been filed on conclusion of investigation in the First Information Report No.90/2000, Police Station Connaught Place. Mr. S.P. Gupta, Mr. Kaveen Gupta and Mr. Vipul Gupta have been summoned and are facing prosecution under Sections 420/406/409/468/471/477-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short). Arguments on the point of charge are yet to be addressed. It is alleged in the charge sheet as under:- ( a ) On 11th March, 1995 the accused persons had induced the complainant company M/s. VLS Finance Limited to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding and were obliged to subscribe to 70 lacs equity shares of M/s.Sun Air Hotels of face value of Rs.10/- each for cash at par. M/s. VLS Finance Limited was informed by the accused ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kamal Capital Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs 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 Ashok Kamal Builders Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 15th July, 1987 vide Certificate of Incorporation No. 28624 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 balance sheets for the period 31.03.2002 to 31.03.2008 and annual returns for the period 30.09.2002 to 30.09.2008. Consequently, the respondent initiated proceedings under S.560 of the Companies Act, 1956, for the purpose of ...
Tag this Judgment!Sh.Subhash Chander VohrA. Vs Sh. Hans Raj and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER.1. This second appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 7.11.2006 which had endorsed the finding of the Trial Judge dated 29.1.2003 whereby while deciding issue no.5, plaintiff had been granted damages/mesne profits @ Rs.5000/- per month.2. Contention before this Court is that this was an arbitrary exercise of the power by the two Courts below based on surmises and conjectures with no evidence before the said Courts. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment relied upon in the impugned judgment as noted in para 10 would not apply to the facts of the instant case. It is pointed out that in this case the rental of the suit property was Rs.160/- per month whereas damages had been awarded in the sum of Rs.5000/- per month; even if the ratio of the judgment in the sa...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Kela Vs Chandra Meshwari and anr.
Court: Delhi
ORDER1. Order dated 12th May, 2010 reads as under:- "The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the order dated 12th April, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and upholding the order dated 19th November, 2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate granting interim maintenance under the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and the respondent did not have any live in relationship or marriage. This aspect has been considered by both the trial court and the learned Additional Session Judge in the impugned orders in great detail. The complaint also is a detailed one in which the respondent has set out facts of her relationship with the petitioner. The respondent has alleged that a male child was born on 25th April, 1995 and the petitioner herein is the father of the said child. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Dayawati Vs D.D.A. and anr.
Court: Delhi
ORDER.1. By the judgment dated 5th March, 2008 DDA was directed to calculate unearned increase as per the land rate prevailing on 24th June, 1996 i.e. the date on which the applicant had purchased the property. It was directed that the applicant will pay simple interest @ 7% per annum for the period after 1st November, 2001 till payment was made to the DDA.2. The applicant is a subsequent purchaser and the original lease allottee was Ms. Uma Kapoor. The applicant had purchased the said property on the basis of power of attorney, agreement to sell etc. Taking advantage of regularization scheme framed by DDA, applicant had applied for regularization and conversion from leasehold to free hold on 3rd September, 1998. Later on it transpired that there was dispute between the DDA and original allottee, Ms.Uma Kapoor, whether the sub lease deed of the plot should be executed in her name only or in joint names with her former husband. It was the case of DDA that they had never handed over poss...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium ...
Court: Delhi
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 ORDER.1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging the order dated 18th September, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "Tribunal") in ITA No. 729/Del/2006, for the Assessment Year 2003 04.2. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the Tribunal has dismissed the Revenue's appeal relying upon the judgment of this Court in ITA Nos. 1156 & 1157/2007 in the case of the respondent-assessee itself wherein similar issue had been rejected by this Court in respect of assessments for assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03. Consequently, following the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in ITA Nos. 1156 & 1157/2007, we dismiss the present quantum appeal but without any order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Mundhe Kailas Maharudra Vs Aiims, New Delhi and ors.
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 the judgment should be reported Yes in the Digest?ORDER.1. The petitioner impugns action of the respondent no.1 AIIMS of, while conducting admissions for the course of Post Graduate / Post Doctoral / MDS pursuant to Entrance Test held in May, 2010, not considering the petitioner, belonging to OBC, in the General category. With respect to the same examination this Court had in WP(C) No.4230/2010 titled Dr. Jagveer Singh v. The Chairperson, Counselling Committee, Academic Section, AIIMS decided on 19th August, 2010 held the action of the respondent no.1 AIIMS to be bad and issued direction to respondent no.1 AIIMS to with effect from the next admissions allow candidates belonging to the reserved category to compete in the General (unreserved) category also.2. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner who had applied for admission in MDS cou...
Tag this Judgment!Chander Prakash Vs Cbi
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?1. The above petition and many more petitions have been filed by litigants against the orders of Special Judge framing charge for the offences under Prevention of Corruption Act coupled with or without charges for offences under IPC.2. Some of the petitions were filed originally under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, some were filed as Revision Petitions and were converted as Writ Petitions at the request of the parties, and some Writs were filed after dismissal of Revision Petition.3. In Dharambir Khattar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 159 (2009) DLT 636, the Bench of Dr. S. Muralidhar J. after considering the provisions of Section 19(3)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act and after considering the legal position and after scanning through various judgments of Supreme Court had observed as under: "To conclude...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Singh Vs State.
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.1. This is an application by the appellant/applicant seeking suspension of his sentence and for enlarging him on bail during the pendency of the present appeal.2. The appellant has filed the above noted appeal against his conviction and sentence by orders dated 3rd February, 2010 and 18th February, 2010 under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. He has also been convicted and sentenced under Section 404 IPC for the period of one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month with all the sentences running concurrently.3. The appellant/applicant has contended that he has already undergone imprisonment of six years three months and six days a...
Tag this Judgment!