Delhi Court January 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M/S M.Sons Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Shri Suresh Jagasia and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
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. Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is preferred with respect to the arbitral award dated 7th March, 2008. The said award inter-alia records that after the petitioners herein namely M/s M. Sons Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Mahavir Prasad Jain & Sons (HUF) had approached the arbitrator (respondent no.2 herein) and sought arbitration in terms of agreement dated 30th July, 2007 and mortgage dated 30th July, 2007 with respect to the disputes with the respondent no.1 Shri Suresh Jagasia, the arbitrator during the course of hearing had encouraged the parties to settle their disputes amicably and acted as mediator and conciliator; that various "suggestions" were exchanged by the parties; the parties reached a broad understanding; that the parties thereafter filed fresh agreements dated 4th Mar...
Nahar Singh, Ex. Lance Naik Vs. Cisf and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
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. Facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner was working as L.Naik under CISF and was deputed for duty at a Unit of Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited (BHEL) at Haridwar and on 11.02.1993 was on duty at the weigh bridge from 13:30 hrs to 21:30 hrs and that a tanker bearing No.HYW 3982 loaded with LDO came to the Unit of Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited (BHEL) for unloading LDO. Now, the consignment had to be weighed and the procedure followed was that while making entry into the precincts of the unit, the loaded tanker would be weighed at a weigh bridge and after decanting the liquid from the tank, the empty tanker would be reweighed at the weigh bridge. The difference in weight of the loaded tanker and the decanted tanker would yield the weight of the LDO which was delivered at the Unit. Further admitted fac...
Kareemul Hajazi Vs. State of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
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 BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J1. This application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appellant (Kareemul Hajazi) is the father of the deceased Nasreen, who was married to the respondent No.3 (Khurshid Anwar). The respondent No.2 (Abdul Kayyum) and the respondent No.4 (Razia Khatun) are the father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the deceased Nasreen. The appellant has filed the appeal claiming to be a victim in terms of the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code').2. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, there is no provision prescribing the period of limitation for such an appeal filed on behalf of a victim under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code. He further submitted that the period of limitation for an appeal b...
M/S Uttam Sucrotech International (P) Limited Vs. Union of India and a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
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? Yes1. Invoking the extraordinary and inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order No. 137/10-CX dated 8.1.2010 passed by the Joint Secretary of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, whereby he has concurred with the order dated 8.6.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, the second respondent herein, who had dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity the Act) on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation. 2. The facts which are essential to be stated for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, is a merchan...
M/S Anand Auto Craft Centre Vs. the Regional Manager Engineering Expor ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
1. Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the report or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be referred in the digest? No 1. Both petitions involved more or less similar issues and are consequently being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The facts in WP (C) 9987 of 2006 are that the Petitioner, a proprietary concern and a merchant exporter exported various automotive components during the year 1992-94. It is stated that by virtue of the said export, the Petitioner became entitled to claim benefit under the International Price Reimbursement Scheme (IPR Scheme) formulated by the Government of India in 1981 to compensate manufacturers and exporters of automotive components with respect to the differential in price of various raw materials like steel, alloy steel, etc as they existed internationally and in India. Under the IPR Scheme, a merchant exporter was eligible to claim price reimbursement against consumption of specified raw ...
M/S Ultra Marine Air Aids (P) Limited Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commiss ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner M/s Ultra Marine Air Aids (P) Limited has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for setting aside the notice under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 dated 28th January, 1987 on many a ground.2. Pursuant to reassessment notice the petitioner filed his return of income and by his letter dated 11th April, 1987 had asked for reasons for reopening of assessment. The reasons were communicated by the Assessing Officer in his letter dated 29th April, 1987, which reads as under:-"2. You had been allowed deduction of Rs.5 lakhs on account of donation made by you to M/s K.M. Scientific Research Centre, Bombay. The Central Board of Direct Taxes vide notification No. 6551 (F.No.203/23/85-IT (Inv.) dated 2.1.86 had withdrawn the approval to M/s K.M. Scientific Research Centre, for the purpose of Section 35(1)(11) w.e.f. 17.1.1980.3. In view of the above information, I had reason to beli...
Ggsip University Vs. Dhruv Singhal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
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 1. In these intra-Court appeals preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, the challenge is to the composite order dated 18th October, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.6641/2010 and WP(C) No.6896/2010 and the common order dated 15th November, 2010 passed in R.P. No.459/2010 and R.P. No.457/2010. Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved, the facts in WP(C) No.6641/2010 are exposited herein.2. The respondent No.1 to the present appeal invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India stating, inter alia, that he had appeared in the Common Entrance Test (CET) conducted by the appellant University on 5th June, 2010 for admission to Engineering & B.Tech programmes in the Institutes / Colleges of the appellant - Univ...
Ramanand Amit Vs. Ruhi Ramanand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No be allowed to see the Judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest?1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for setting aside/quashing of the order dated 5.4.2010 passed by the learned ASJ, disposing of his appeal filed under Section 29 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short 'the Act'), against the ex parte judgment and order dated 13.4.2009, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Delhi.2. Under the ex parte judgment dated 13.4.2009, the Mahila Court directed the petitioner to pay to the respondent, rent for the house in which she resides, at the rate of `2,500/- from April 2008 onwards, and thereafter pay a 10% increase in each successive year, alongwith `3,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of the complaint ...
Narender Kumar Chawla Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes.1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner for setting aside an order dated 21st December, 2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision thereby setting aside an order of trial court dated 31st October 2008 and 8th July, 2009.2. The learned MM after declaring the accused Anil Kumar Tekchandani as proclaimed offender initiated proceedings under Section 83 Cr.P.C and the property of accused was attached including immovable property, arrears of salary, provident fund and gratuity which he had to draw from his employer. The wife of accused filed objections and stated that the immovable property attached did not belong to accused but belonged to her and, therefore, could not be attached. The learned MM allowed these objections and lifted the attachment of immovable property. However, attachm...
Delhi State Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/S Bhagwati Transport C ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2011
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. The short point involved in this matter is as to, "whether the objections filed by the appellant against the award given by the Arbitrator in favour of the respondent were within time inasmuch as, whether, the appellant was entitled to seek condonation of delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act r/w Section 42 of the Arbitration of Conciliation Act, 1996?".2. Briefly stating, the facts of this case are that, the award with respect to the dispute which arose between the parties was passed by the Arbitrator on 30.10.2003. The objections were filed by the appellant before this Court even though in an earlier OMP No. 165/2003 filed by the respondent, the appellant had taken an objection that the OMP No. 165/2003 was not maintainable, as when the Court of District Judge was seized of the matter in view of...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »