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.
Hari Singh and ors. Vs. State and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
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. Appellants have filed this appeal to assail the Order of the Additional District Judge Delhi in having dismissed their probate case No. 344/1995 filed by them for seeking Letters of Administration of the Will allegedly executed by deceased/testator Shri Laik Ram on 01.05.1991. Vide impugned order the petition was dismissed by holding that the said will besides being shrouded with suspicious circumstances was also not proved under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act to have been executed by the deceased in view of the Contradictions noticed in the deposition of the two attesting witnesses examined by the appellants. It is this finding which has been assailed in this appeal. Even though the objectors to the aforesaid will had set up another will but they have also failed to prove the same. However they have not fi...
Michael Casey Enterprises Ltd. and ors. Vs. Tvc Sky Shop
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
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. The three plaintiffs have filed the two suits for permanent injunction restraining passing off, infringement of copyright, rendition of accounts, delivery etc.2. The suits have been filed claiming that the plaintiffs are engaged in the business of marketing inter alia of health equipment; that one of the health and fitness equipment marketed by the plaintiffs is an apparatus marketed under the trade mark "AB KING PRO", designed to generate negative contractions of abdominal muscles by acting as a reverse crunch for a complete workout and a fuller range of motion; that the said equipment had been extensively advertised by the plaintiff No.3 through various media including newspapers, magazines etc. throughout the Indian sub-continent and had become popular amongst the pubic and acquired formidable goodwill a...
Raj Pal Singh Vs. the Executive Engineer, Bypl and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
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. The petitioner claims to be a resident of house situated on Khasra No.165, Chankya Marg, Chhajupur Road, Shahdara, Delhi. This writ petition has been filed seeking mandamus to the respondent No.1 BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. and the respondent No.2 MCD to remove and dismantle the transformer installed abutting the premises of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the transformer poses a danger not only to the petitioner and his family members but also to the others in the congested locality. It is further stated that the t-irons of the transformer are embedded in the wall of the premises of the petitioner.2. Notice of the petition was issued.3. The counsel for the respondent No.1 BYPL has contended that the said transformer has been in existence at the same place for the last more than 20 years i....
Air Corporation Employees Union Vs. Air India Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
1. Whether reporters of the local news papers be allowed to see the order? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the order should be reported in the Digest? Yes 1. For the reasons stated therein, this application is allowed. The name of Respondent National Aviation Company of India Ltd. is modified as Air India Limited. The amended memo of parties is taken on record.2. The application is disposed of.3. Can a registered trade union be derecognized by the Management without being issued a show cause notice and without affording such union an opportunity of being heard? This is the question that arises for consideration in the present writ petition.4. For the reasons explaining hereinafter, this Court answers the question in negative.5. The Petitioner Air Corporations Employees Union (ACEU) states that it is the largest and most representative trade union of the non-technical and some technical workmen of the Respondent Air India Limited (earlier known as the National ...
The Central India Electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Com ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
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 YES reported in the Digest?1. This appeal arises out of the Order dated 04.03.1999 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( for short, the Tribunal ) in terms whereof the appeal of the assessee relating to the assessment year 1965-66 and the appeal filed by the Revenue relating to the assessment year 1979-80 were partly allowed, while the cross-objections of the assessee relating to the assessment year 1979-80 were dismissed.2. The questions of law, which arise for consideration before us in the present appeal, are:"(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that re-assessment proceedings under Section 147(a) read with Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been rightly initiated against the assessee? (2) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that valid approval had bee...
Bedi and Bedi Associates Vs. M.C.D
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
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. The writ petition was filed claiming that the petitioner, a sole proprietary of a retired Military Officer, was engaged in supply of manpower and human resources to the various government organizations since the year 1986; that in October, 2004 the petitioner had participated in the open tender invited by the respondent MCD for empanelment of contractors for providing Data Entry Operators to the respondent MCD; that the petitioner was so empanelled and from October, 2004 onwards as an empanelled contractor was receiving requisitions from various departments of the respondent MCD and providing them manpower to execute the work of Data Entry; that on 8th September, 2007 the respondent MCD issued a fresh advertisement for empanelling the contractors for providing Data Entry Operators; that the petitioner parti...
G.S.Raju Vs. Cbi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may Yes 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? Yes1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.PC assailing an order dated 4.1.2011 passed by the Special Judge, CBI in case FIR No.RC- DAI-2008-A-0004-DLI dated 4.1.2008, whereunder an application under Section 311 Cr.PC filed by the respondent praying inter alia for recalling PW- 9, Inspector Prem Nath, CBI ACB, New Delhi and PW-12, SI Manish Kumar Upadhaya, CBI, ACB, New Delhi, was allowed.2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Special Judge, CBI erred in allowing the aforesaid application filed by the respondent as such a permission would amount to permitting the respondent to fill up the lacunae in its case, which had arisen after evidence had been led by the petitioner in his defense, and hence, would amount to n...
ishan Systems Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Vijaya Bank
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
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. By way of present petition, the petitioners have sought quashing of complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act titled as "Vijaya Bank vs. Ishan Systems Pvt. Ltd." and summoning order dated 31st August, 2010 passed by learned trial court whereby summons of the petitioners were issued for appearance.2. The contention of the petitioners is that no doubt the petitioners have taken loan from the respondent bank and the cheques issued by the petitioners were presented by the respondent and dishonoured but since the respondent bank had invoked the provisions of Securitization Act, complaint under Section 138 NI Act would not be maintainable. It is submitted that the respondent bank vide its order dated 30th June, 2010 transferred its liability in respect of petitioners to Park Ltd. therefore the bank has no liabilit...
A.K. Sabharwal Vs. Ndmc and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment YES2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? NO3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? NO The appellant has challenged the order of dismissal dated 03rd March, 2010 of his writ petition passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition bearing No.7695 of 2008 where the appellant had sought quashing of order dated 30th September, 2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari, New Delhi upholding the order dated 19th September, 1991 passed by the Estate Officer, directing the appellant to vacate the premises No.203, Palika Bhawan Complex, R.K.Puram, New Delhi.While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge had also observed that as per Statement of Accounts filed by the respondent/NDMC, the appellant has arrears of more than Rs.3 crores and 40 lacs excluding interest. It had also been observed that the appellant has been dispossessed and the license of the appellant had exp...
Naresh Kumar JaIn Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
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 1. The petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus under article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting the petitioner at liberty after quashing the detention order dated 02.06.2010 bearing no. 673/06/2010-Cus.VIII passed by the respondent no.2 (Jt Secy to Govt of India, Ministry of Finance, Dept of Revenue, CEIB, New Delhi) under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act'). Points in issue:2. Mr B. Kumar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, challenged the impugned detention order and continued detention of the petitioner on the following five points:-1. The petitioner was already in custody under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the N...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »