Delhi Court October 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.
Rajesh Kumar Vs. Naresh Kumar Goel and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
1. This revision petition is under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958(in short 'the Act') and has been filed by the petitioner- tenant against the order dated 16th December, 2010 passed by the Rent Controller whereby his application for leave to contest the eviction petition filed by his landlord, respondent herein, under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act to have the possession from him of one shop bearing no. 82, Samman Bazar, Jangpura, Bhogal, New Delhi-110014 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'tenanted shop') has been dismissed and an eviction order has been passed .2. The facts entitling the respondent-landlord to secure the eviction order were pleaded in detail in para no. 18 of the eviction petition and the relevant averments only are re-produced below:"18 (a).(i) The petitioners are the owners and also the landlords; and the "suit- premises" are required bona fide by the petitioners for commercial use for themselves and also for the family members of petitioner nos. ...
Hubli Pipe Corporation and anr Vs. Vrindavan Tubes Ltd and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
1. Admittedly in the present case, the cheque(s) in question were presented for encashment at Delhi and the legal demand notice under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 has been issued from Delhi.2. Vide a judgment delivered by this court on 09.09.2011 in Crl. Rev. P. 170/2010, 'GE Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Rahisuddin Khan,' view has been taken on the jurisdiction keeping the case of K. Bhaskaran Vs. S.B. Balan AIR 1999 SC 3762, whereby 5 ingredients were decided for offences U/s 138 NI Act as under:-"The Offence u/s 138 NI Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. Following are the acts which are components of the said offence:-1. Drawing of the cheque,2. Presentation of the cheque to the bank,3. Returning the cheque unpaid by drawee bank,4. Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount,5. Failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice."----If ...
Vijay Sakhija and anr Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
1. This is a petition seeking quashing of the order dated 2nd April, 2007 directing framing of charge against the petitioners for offence punishable under Sections 306 IPC. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that in the FIR the only allegation against the Petitioners is that they abused the deceased Sanjay Srivastava. There is no proximity between the alleged accusations and cause of death. The accusations leveled do not lead to abetment of committing suicide. Merely abusing a person in front of other people cannot lead to an inference that he abetted suicide. This is a reaction of a person who is hyper sensitive, which will not fall within the ambit of offence under Section 306 IPC. Reliance is placed on M. Mohan vs. State 2011 (3) SCC 626, Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat 2010 (4) RCR (Crl.) 207, Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2002 SC 1998.2. The case of the prosecution in nut-shell is that the deceased Sanjay Srivastava was employed with ...
State (Govt. of Delhi) Vs. Smt.Sumitra and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-2011
1. In this double murder case, respondents' acquittal is questioned on account of being palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous and demonstratably unsustainable.2. In the morning of 20.03.1996 Meenu and her infant child, aged about 7 months, had sustained burn injuries in the house of the respondents, who happen to be mother-in- law, brother-in-law (jeth) and sister-in-law (jethani) of Meenu, who was married to Sanjay, son of the 1st respondent, about 1½ years prior to this incident. The first information of this incident was given by Meenu herself in the hospital before Sh.K.K.Dahiya, SDM and on its basis, FIR No. 110/96 of this case was registered initially for the offence under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC against the respondents. When Meenu and her infant child had succumbed to the burn injuries, the 1st and 3rd respondents were accused of committing their murder and the statement of Meenu (Ex.PW1/A), which was recorded in question and answer form, became the dying declaration a...
Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd. Vs. Parul Food Specialities Pvt. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-2011
1. Vide impugned order dated 19.1.2011, while restraining the defendant/respondent from selling ‘Ghee’ using the trademark ‘KRISHNA’ but permitting sale with the label having words "PARUL’S" and ‘LORD’ i.e. to read "PARUL’S LORD KRISHNA"; all 3 words having same font and prominence and not that the words "PARUL’S" and ‘LORD’ having a font so small that only the word ‘KRISHNA’ catches (the eye due to its prominence), application filed by the appellant/plaintiff for interim injunction pending disposal of the suit has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge.2. The appellant asserts that it has been in the business of manufacture and sale of ghee, milk and milk products since the year 1992 and sales have risen from `47.29 crores in the year 1997-1998 to `374.44 crores in the year 2008- 2009. Appellant asserts that it has obtained registration of the label mark ‘KRISHNA’ having pictorial reflectio...
Darshan Singh Vs. Ramesh ChoprA.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-2011
1. This is a revision petition filed under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958(in short 'the Act') by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 05.03.2010 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal whereby it has upheld the eviction order dated 02.12.09 passed in E- 16/09/04 by the Additional Rent Controller against the petitioner herein in respect of the accommodation on the second floor of property no. 12- A/39 W.E.A., Karol Bagh, New Delhi (herein after referred as the 'premises in dispute').2. According to the case of the respondent, as pleaded in the eviction petition under Section 14(h) of the Act, the petitioner was the tenant in respect of premises in dispute consisting of two rooms, one kitchen, one store, latrine and bathroom on the second floor and the same were let out for residential purposes and were being used as such by the petitioner. It was further pleaded by the respondent that his tenant(petitioner herein) had acquired possession of the premises no. ...
Amit Arora Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-2011
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 01.08.2011 passed by the learned Intellectual Property Appellate Board (hereinafter referred as the Board) in ORA/143/2006/TM/DEL. By the impugned order, the learned Board has rejected the petitioner’s application, i.e. M.P. No. 57/2007 with Costs of Rs.25,000/- and has allowed the respondents application being M.P. No. 57/2008, whereby the respondent had sought amendment of Form 1 and the Statement of Case. The petitioner has been permitted to file its amended counter-statement while making it clear that the petitioner shall strictly confine his response to answer to the amendment, and not to set up an altogether new case, which would require another reply and would saddle the Board with endless series of pleadings.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner obtained registration of trademark ‘Milton’ for LPG Gas Stoves in the year 1991. The petitioner preferred C.S.(O.S.) No. 1580/2002 to seek...
Vinesh Singh Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-2011
1. The petitioner, a constable with Central Reserve Police Force, received a telegram on 7.6.1997 informing him about the death of his wife, upon which the Coy CHM of his unit granted the petitioner casual leave for 15 days commencing from 9.6.97 to 29.6.97 and forwarded the matter to the Force Headquarter for formal approval. Needless to state, leave was granted on exceptional urgent basis inasmuch as it was premised on the requirement of the petitioner to immediately report to his home town as his wife had died.2. Petitioner was to report to duty on 29.6.1997 but he did not return. The department received telegram on 12.7.1997 stating that petitioners wife was in a critical condition. But, before receipt of said telegram, the department had written a letter on the same date i.e. 12.7.1997 ordering the petitioner to report back to duty immediately. Another telegram was received by the department on 18.7.1997 in which petitioner informed once again that his wife was critically ill.3. T...
Anil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-2011
1. By this common judgment, I will dispose of all the three suits and counter-claim referred above. Defendant No. 1 entered into construction-cum-agreements dated 23rd April, 1990 with the plaintiff-bank for construction on various properties. The sale deed was to be executed within 30 days from the date of giving possession to the plaintiff. Under the agreement, defendant No. 1 was to pay all taxes on the properties subject matter of the agreements till possession was delivered to the plaintiff-bank. The agreement provided for payment of penalty to the plaintiff- bank at the rate of 0.5% of the total sale consideration subject to ceiling of 7.5% of the total consideration if possession of the flats, to be constructed by defendant No. 1, is delayed beyond 18 months from the date of the signing of the agreement. The bank was entitled to rescind the agreement in case of delay beyond 15 weeks and in that case the amount disbursed by it was recoverable with interest from the date of disbur...
Ram Mohan Vs. the State of Nct of Delhi.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-2011
1. These two appeals by Ram Mohan and Ram Prakash alias Munna Tyagi are directed against the judgement dated 26-05-2010 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02 (South), Patiala house courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.179/2009 (old number: 62/2003) arising out of FIR No.177/03 under sections 302/201/34 IPC registered at police station Vasant Kunj whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under sections 302/34 IPC. The appellants are also aggrieved by the order on sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 03-06-2010 whereby both the appellants were sentenced to rigourous imprisonment for life and were also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default of which, the defaulting convict was to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The appellants were given the benefit of section 428 CrPC.2. The charge against the appellants was that they, on or about 22-03-2003, near Shiv Mandir Rangpuri Pahari, in furtheranc...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »