Delhi Court September 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 6 of about 113 results (0.021 seconds)Diwan 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 NO in the Digest?ORDER.1. The appellant, Diwan Singh, husband of deceased Smt. Mansa has challenged his conviction under Section 498A and Section 302 of Indian Penal Code by order dated 6th June, 2001 and his sentence under Section 302 of IPC for imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days and under Section 498A of IPC for three years and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo a further rigorous imprisonment for seven days by order dated 11th June, 2001. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and benefit of Section 428 of Crl. Procedure Code was given to him.2. The present appeal was admitted on 5th November, 2001 and on 16th September, 2005, after undergoing incarceration for about seven years, the appellant's sentence was suspended and he wa...
Tag this Judgment!Ravi Sood and anr. Vs State and ors.
Court: Delhi
ORDER1. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. Ravi Sood and Ms. Raj Sood are brother and sister-in-law of respondent No. 4- Ms. Vimla Sood. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are 85 and 81 years old respectively. Respondent No. 4 states that she is 90 years old and she is present in the Court. The dispute between them relates to first floor of property No. H-3, Green Park (Main), New Delhi (the property, for short). The admitted position is that the petitioners were in occupation of the first floor of the said property since May 2005. This possession is not disputed by the respondent No. 4, who is the owner of the first floor of the property. Respondent No. 4 herself along with her maid respondent No. 5 resides on the ground floor of the said property. The allegation of the petitioners is that the respondent No. 4 is under influence of the respondent No. 5 and has been acting as per her wishes and on her behest.2. On or about 17th March, 2010, Ms. Sonia Sood, daughter of the petitioners filed a suit fo...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Rainbow Travels and anr. Vs M/S. New High Flying Travels Pvt Ltd.
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 reportedCM (M) 1144/2010 Page 1 of 11 in the Digest? ORDER.1.By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged order dated 31.7.2010 passed by Senior Civil Judge, vide which, evidence of Petitioner was closed.2. Brief facts are that in February, 2006 respondent (plaintiff in trial court) filed a suit for recovery of Rs.65,131/- against present petitioners (defendants in trial court). Petitioner No.2 filed cross claim in the suit, in April, 2006. On 31.7.2010, since no witness of petitioner was present, trial court closed the evidence of petitioners.3. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that trial court has closed the petitioners evidence without any cogent reason and as such prejudice has been caused to them. The order closing petitioners evidence without giving any re...
Tag this Judgment!Dasu @ Das . Vs State 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 NO in the Digest?ORDER.No one had appeared on behalf of the appellant on 16th July, 2010 and bailable warrants were issued against the appellant in the sum of Rs.10,000/- Notice was also issued to the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by order dated 6th October, 2001 in Sessions Case No.98 of 1998, titled as 'State v. Dasu @ Das' arising out of F.I.R.No.132/1998, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, P.S.Hauz Khas, New Delhi and he was ordered to undergo life imprisonment by order of sentence dated 12th October, 2001 and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days which was challenged by the appellant in the above noted appeal. Pursuant to the notice issued to the counsel for the appellant, Mr.M.L...
Tag this Judgment!Larsen and Tourbo Ltd and anr. Vs Union of India and ors.
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 the judgment should be reported in Digest?ORDER.1. We have heard the counsel for the parties at length.2. We are not inclined to pass any interim order in favour of the petitioners. The reasons for the same would be clear from what is stated below.3. This writ petition has been filed in respect of a tender which was invited by National Thermal Power Corporation (Respondent No.2) for the supply and installation of 11 Steam Turbine Generator (STG) Packages for its various Super Thermal Power Projects. 4. The bids were invited in two sequential stages. The first stage was that of the Techno-Commercial Bid and the second stage involved the Price Bid.5. The bids were to be submitted, as aforesaid, in sequence. Only those parties which cleared stage-I would be entitled to submit their price bids in stage-II.6. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that it has not been...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sneh Prabha Bansal and anr. Vs Life Insurance Corporation of Indi ...
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? YesORDER.1.Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging order dated 6th August, 2010 passed by Civil Judge, Delhi in execution proceedings and also for recall of the orders dated 23rd May, 2001 and 18th October, 2003, in so far as they provide for interest to be paid on the sum of Rs.1,73,628.80/- in excess of simple interest at the rate of Rs. 6 per cent per annum.2. Brief facts are that in year 1998 respondent (plaintiff in trial court) filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,73,628.80/- against present petitioner (defendant in trial court). As per averments made in the petition /lists of dates and events, no summon was served upon petitioners and they were proceeded ex parte. Petitioners, filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for ...
Tag this Judgment!Ruchi TalrejA. Vs State.
Court: Delhi
ORDER1. This is an application for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant is an innocent house wife, who is not a signatory of any of the documents and being a lady she is entitled to benefit of proviso to Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( Code for short). It is submitted that the applicant has two children, who are dependent on her. Son of the applicant is studying in second year college and the daughter is in 9th class. It is stated that the applicant recently in May, 2010 had suffered Jaundice and is under treatment for Thyroid. He further states that the interim protection was granted by this Court by order dated 17th May, 2010, but the applicant was never called to join investigation. Learned counsel for the applicant Bail Application 874/2010 Page 1 submits that the applicant has filed a probate petition in the year 2004 on the basis of the alleged Will of late Mr. Kasturi Lal Kalra, which is partly in her favour and is ...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Development Authority Vikas Sadan, Ina Vs. Sanjay Aggarwal
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral): 1. The applicant appellant has filed an appeal. Along with it, the applicant has also filed application for condonation of delay of 48 days. 2. We have heard Girija Wadhwa, Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Shyam Nandan, Counsel for the respondent on delay condonation application who opposed the delay condonation application by filing an objection. 3. What has been said in the application is, that the copy of the order was received in the office of the appellant on 20.10.2009. It does not seem to be correct. The certified copy of the judgment, according to the endorsement of the Consumer Forum thereon, was dispatched on 3.9.2009 by the registered post, and the same must have reached in normal course within a week. 4. Explaining the delay, the DDA has stated in the application that after the receipt of the copy, it was given to the dealing clerk to examine, who sent the file to Senior Law Officer after giving his opinion, and the Senior Law Officer af...
Tag this Judgment!Hacienda Farms Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
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?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER: For the reasons stated in the application, delay in re-filing theappeal is condoned. Accordingly, application stands disposed of.1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1961") challenging the order dated 28th August, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity "Tribunal") in ITA No. 3184/Del/2008 for the Assessment Year 1996-97.2. The relevant facts of the present appeal are that appellant- assessee filed a return declaring its income as nil. However, during the course of assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of Act, 1961 appellant's net taxable income was determined at ` 5,84,992/-. The following three additions were made in the appellant's income :-i) Income from unexplained sources 2,08,800/- ii) Unexplai...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Council for Agricultural Research and ors. Vs. Vipul Raj.
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 the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ORDER: 1. The respondent who was proceeded departmentally on corruption charges was held guilty by the enquiry officer and was removed from service in terms of the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 08.08.2006. His appeal filed before the appellate authority was rejected vide order dated 03.01.2007. Thereafter the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) vide OA No.237/2008 which was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 20.04.2009 whereby while setting aside both the orders dated 08.08.2006 and 03.01.2007 the Tribunal directed reinstatement of the respondent in service without back wages with further directions in para 12 of the order passed by the Tribunal which reads as under: "12. In he light of the above disc...
Tag this Judgment!