Delhi Court September 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 7 of about 113 results (0.022 seconds)Mahender Kumar Vs State.
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 in Digest? YES V.K. JAIN, J1. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment dated 28.07.1997 and Order on Sentence dated 29.07.1997 whereby Mahender Kumar, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 308/1997 was convicted under Section 302 of IPC read with Section 120-B thereof whereas Ramshree, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 316/1997 was convicted under Section 120-B of IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of ` 2000/- each or to undergo one year in default.2. On 8th February 1988, at about 9:20 AM, an information was received at Police Station Trilok Puri that a dead body was lying by the side of National Highway leading towards Country Liquor Shop from Gazipur. On receipt of copy of DD, whereby this information was recorded, SI Chander Bhan reached the spot and found a dead body lying there. From ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S GoldwIn Technology (P) Ltd. Vs M/S Electronic Components and Tuner ...
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.As per impugned order dated 25th May, 2010, application of petitioner (defendant in trial court) filed under Order 37 Rule 3 (5) of the Code, seeking leave to defend, was dismissed and consequently suit filed by respondent (plaintiff in trial court) was decreed for a sum of Rs. 89,990/- with costs and pendent lite and future interest @ 12% per annum. Counsel fee of Rs.4000/- was also awarded to respondent.2. The short question which arise for consideration is as to whether against final decree, Revision lies under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short as Code) or an appeal lies under Section 96 of the Code. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that Revision under Section 115 of the Code is maintainable against impugned order. In support learned counsel cited decision of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Singh Vs Union of India 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 in the Digest? ORDER.1. The writ petitioner assails a discharge certificate dated 30th June, 1990 whereby he was discharged from service on the ground that his services were no longer required and the order dated 1st December, 1992 passed by the Directorate General of Border Roads rejecting the petitioner's appeal assailing the order of termination of his services by way of the present petition. The facts giving rise to the writ petition are undisputed and to the extent necessary, are briefly noted hereafter.2. The respondent had issued an advertisement no. 1/85 inviting applications for several posts in the General Reserve Engineering Force including for the post of "M.T. Driver". The advertisement placed before us stipulated certain `Special Conditions' which have been relied upon by the respondents before us and read as f...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gambhir and ors. Vs Sh. Trilik Kumar Gambhir.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes CM (M) No. 1135-2010 Page 1 of 92. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ORDER.1.Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India by petitioners challenging order dated 18.8.2010, passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi.2. Vide impugned order, application of petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure (for short as Code) seeking amendment in the written statement was dismissed.3. Brief facts are that in year 2000, respondent (plaintiff in trial court) filed a suit for possession and mesne profits against petitioners (defendants in trial court). Petitioners filed their written statement on 28.8.2002 and issues were framed on 3.12.2004. In 2010, petitioners filed an application for amendment of their written statement. It would be pertinent to point out that trial commenced in 2004 when respondent was directe...
Tag this Judgment!Major Alok Shukla Vs Union of India 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 in the Digest? ORDER.1. The petitioner's grievance in the present writ petition is that despite possessing a valid university degree; clearing the prescribed examination and fulfilling the eligibility conditions for the inter arms/service transfer from the Corps of artillery to the Judge Advocate General department with the Indian Army, his application for the same has wrongly not been considered. In support of his submissions, the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of this court dated 16th August, 2007 in W.P.(C) No. 17025/2006 entitled Lt. Col. Mukul Dev vs. UOI & Ors. also an ex officer of the Corps of artillery who is similarly placed and had taken the same exam for inter arms/service transfer in 2005 as the petitioner.2. The factual narration leading to the present case is not disputed. The petitioner completed ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Hydraulic Industries Pvt.Ltd. Vs Shyam Lal 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?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?ORDER.1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for quashing of impugned ex parte award dated 14.08.2001 in I.D. No. 632/1999 as well as order dated 11.05.2005 by which learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court has dismissed the application of petitioner/management for setting aside of ex parte award.2. The facts leading to the filing of present petition are as under:- Respondent/workman had raised an industrial dispute about his alleged illegal termination which was referred by the Secretary (Labour) Government of NCT of Delhi to Labour Court vide reference no. F.24(2792)/99 Lab. /37193-97 dated 09.09.1999 to Smt. Deepa Sharma, Presiding Officer, Labour Court-V, Delhi for adjudication. On 21.09.1999, the said dispute was registered vide I.D. No. 632/1999 and no...
Tag this Judgment!Director General I.C.F.R.E. and anr.and ors.Vs Ram Prakash 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? PRADEEPNANDRAJOG, J.1. Vide resolution No.1-8/89-RT dated 22.06.1990, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, decided to convert its attached unit Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (hereinafter referred to as "ICFRE") and its allied research institutes into an autonomous institution. Vide resolution No.1-8/87-RT issued by Department of Environment Forests and Wildlife, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, modalities of the said conversion were prescribed, which resolution reads as under:- "Whereas Government of India, have decided to constitute the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education, a subordinate office of the Ministry of Environment and Forests into an autonomous institution vide Resolution No. 1-8/89- RT dated 22.6.1999 and, Whereas the Indian Co...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and ors. Vs Ram Kishore 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 the Digest?ORDER.1. The respondents are selectees of Combined Main (Graduate Level) 2003 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) for the post of Inspector, Central Excise.2. They were appointed as Inspectors in the year 2005. As per the conditions of service as contained in Memorandum dated 12.7.2005 wherein they have to give the willingness to serve anywhere within the jurisdiction of Shillong Zone, the following clause was also added:- "(xi) He/She is liable to transfer/posting within this Zone to which he/she is nominated and under no circumstances his/her request for transfer to any other Commissionerate outside this Zone will be entertained."3. This condition was contrary to the condition of service as had been applicable to the Inspectors who joined in Shillong zone earlier and who joined in other zones which prov...
Tag this Judgment!iti Certificate Holders' Association (Regd.) Vs Delhi Transport Corpor ...
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 under Section 152 of CPC for correcting the typographical mistake in order dated 23rd March, 2010 passed by this Court disposing the above noted writ petition. By order dated 30th July, 2010, notices were issued to the counsel for the respondents of the above noted application for correction in the order dated 23rd March, 2010. Service report indicates that Mr. J.S. Bhasin has been served on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Ms. Zubeda Begum has been served for respondents No. 2 & 3. An affidavit of service has also been filed. Despite the service, no one is present on behalf of the respondents nor has any reply to the application been filed and therefore, this Court proceeds with consideration of the application. The petitioner has sought correction of typographical mistake to the e...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi .Vs Hero Honda Motors Ltd
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ORDER.This is an application for condonation of delay in refiling the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in refiling the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 challenging the order dated 08th August, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "Tribunal") in ITA No. 815/Del of 2002 for the Assessment Year 1998-1999.2. In the present appeal, it has been urged that the Tribunal had erred in law in upholding the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order and in deleting the addition of ` 60,61,043/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of foreign exchange fluctuation.3. Admittedly, the aforesaid issue is covered against the Revenue by the judgment of the Supreme...
Tag this Judgment!