Delhi Court January 2011 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2011 Page 1 of about 216 results (0.021 seconds)Dr. Seema Vs. Dr. Alkesh Chaudhary
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 1. By this appeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and decree dated 5.2.2004 passed by the court of the learned ADJ whereby a decree of divorce 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 the parties got married on 17.4.1992 at Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and a child named Samir was born out of the said wedlock on 22.5.1996. The respondent alleged that the appellant did not fulfill her marital obligations and was cruel to him from the very beginning of their marriage. Therefore a petition for divorce under section 13(1) (ia) was filed by the respondent which vide judgment and decree dated 5.2.2004 was decreed in favour of the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Oasis Hospitalities (Pvt.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers 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? 1. In all these appeals, issue relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on account of unexplained share application money. Though the background of the facts in which these additions were made in respect of different assessees may not be identical, but there is lot of similarity. In any case, since principle of law which is to be applied in all these cases is common, by way of this singular judgment all these appeals can be decided. However, in the process we would intend to dispose of these appeals by this common judgment. We would proceed to discuss the position of law in first instance and thereafter, on the application of that law, we shall answer the question which arises in different appeals.2. Section 68 of the Act...
Tag this Judgment!Rambir Singh Vs. Union of India
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? 1. On 15.3.2001 the petitioner joined as a constable under Central Industrial Security Force and after completing training was deputed in the State of Assam and thereafter in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. He claims to have received a message that his wife Suman Devi, an expectant mother, was unwell and the unborn child in her womb was likely to be aborted. Being disturbed and wanting to be with his wife, petitioner claims to have made a request to the Company Commander, Insp.A.K.Arya that he be sanctioned leave and since the authority to sanction leave was the Commandant, petitioner claims that Insp.A.K.Arya assured him that he would speak to the Commandant, but no leave was sanctioned.2. By 16.7.2006, an unfortunate incident took place, in respect whereof a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner.3. Before noting...
Tag this Judgment!Manas Malara Vs. Union of India 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?1. Petitioner was selected as a cadet at the National Defence Academy, Khadakwasla on 03.07.2007 and joined the Academy; on a date not disclosed.2. Notwithstanding petitioner being good at sports, was found to be a trouble some cadet. Breaking the rules of the Academy he consumed alcohol and noting that various warnings had been administered to him from time to time, taking a serious view of petitioner having consumed alcohol on 29.03.2009, he was relegated from 118 Course to 119 Course, intimation whereof was given to petitioner's father.3. Unfortunately, for the petitioner he did not make any amend, evidenced by the fact that thereafter various warnings and advisories issued to him stand recorded in his record profile. Another incident took place on 24.07.2010 when petitioner was found to be in possession of a mobile...
Tag this Judgment!Asha Ram Vs. Shanti Devi and anr.
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? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Yes the Digest?1. Appellant Asha Ram is the son of deceased testator who executed a Will dated 21.10.88 which was also registered. As per the aforesaid Will estate comprising of a double storey house built on a plot area of 80 sq. yds bearing No. 16-1/690-91, Bapa Nagar, Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi was bequeathed by the deceased testator in favour of Smt. Shanti Devi who was a widow of late Shri Raj to the exclusion of the appellant (his son) and five daughters besides other son. None of the daughters on the other side filed any objection with regard to their exclusion in the aforesaid Will. The execution and attestation of the Will was only challenged by the appellant, namely, Shri Asha Ram.2. According to the appellant the deceased testator at the time of execution of the Will was lying on bed for last one y...
Tag this Judgment!Sunita Gupta Vs. Inderjeet Singh and anr.
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?1. This application has been filed under Section 151 CPC for modification of terms of compromise as recorded in I.A. No.6506/2009 and in terms of which compromise the suit was decreed. The applicants were not parties to the suit or to the compromise aforesaid. They however claim to be successors in interest and assignees of the defendant no.1 Shri Inderjit Singh who was a party to the compromise. In terms of the said compromise the defendant no.1 Shri Inderjit Singh had exclusive rights of ownership and construction inter alia over the existing roof/terrace above the second floor of the property No.G-60, East of Kailash, New Delhi, on the condition that he shall be obliged to at his own cost reconstruct the servant quarters, toilets and water tanks existing on the said terrace to the roof/terrace of the fresh ...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Divya Sood Vs. Ms. Renu Bajaj
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 Digest?1. This is a suit for permanent injunction, rendition of accounts and damages. The plaintiff Ms. Divya Sood, who is carrying business under the name and style M/s THE BODY CARE in engaged in providing beauty and health care services through slimming centres, beauty clinics, spas, etc. The case of the plaintiff is that she began her operation in the year 1997 and is now recognized as the leader in providing beauty and health services, through a team of dedicated and trained professionals, who are acknowledged to be the best trained in the industry. She also claims to be well known for setting up professional and ethical standards and claims reputation as a world-class beauty and health care specialists. She is operating 23 beauty body and health care clinics all over the country with branches in all major Indian...
Tag this Judgment!Birla Gtm - Enterpose Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India and anr
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be referred in the digest? Yes 1. The Petitioners Birla GTM-Entrepose Limited (`BGEL), and its Ex- Chairman, Ex-Director and Chief Executive Officer have filed this petition challenging an order dated 6th October, 2008 issued by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), Respondent No.2 banning/black listing BGEL from participating or bidding for projects of/or to be undertaken by NHAI either by itself or in association with any person or entity for a period of five years from the date of the order. Background facts2. The Petitioners state that BGEL is a joint venture company (JV) incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 pursuant to a JV agreement dated 18th January, 1990 between National Engineering Industries Limited and GTM Entrepose, France (GTME). The Petitioners state that the said JV agreement provided that technical assist...
Tag this Judgment!M/S J.C. Enterprises (Regd.) Vs. Ranganatha Enterprises
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 Digest?1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.43,82,473/-. It is alleged in the plaint that M/s J78.C. Enterprises, which was a partnership firm, was dissolved vide Dissolution Deed dated 1.4.1997 and thereafter, the plaintiff Rakesh Sharma has been running this firm as his proprietorship concern. The defendant Suresh is running business under the name and style of M/s Ranganatha Enterprises. It is alleged in the plaint that under an oral agreement between the parties, the defendant was appointed as a stockiest of State lotteries including Daily Lotteries etc., on wholesale rate basis. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the plaintiff was required to dispatch lottery tickets to the defendant from Delhi as per the requirement of the defendant. The defendant was required to make payment to the plaintiff with...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahindra Finlease P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers 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? 1. These appeals were admitted on the following substantial question of law and immediately thereafter heard finally: "Whether the protective assessment can be framed in the proceedings under Section 158BC/158BD?"2. Since question of law is common and arise out of same transactions, the question formulated is being answered by this singular judgment.3. The facts of the matter do not need a wide canvass and briefly stated herein below.A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was conducted on 20.06.2000 at the residential and business premises of Shri P.K. Sood who is the Director in the assessee companies. During the said operation, certain documents were found in his possession wherein it was recorded that during the block assessment period, Shri S...
Tag this Judgment!