Delhi Court February 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.
Satnam Singh Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2011
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. The petitioner was charged as under :- "The accused No.92009110 Constable MALLE BOINA RAJ KUMAR (Accused No.1) and No.926000304 Constable SATNAM SINGH (Accused No.2) of C Coy, 105 Bn BSF are charged with:-BSF ACT AN OMISSION PREJUDICIAL TO 1968 GOOD ORDER AND DISCIPLINE OF SECTION THE FORCE 40In that he, on the night intervening 25/26 Nov, 2008 while performing Naka duty at Naka No.05 & 06 (Combined Naka) of BOP Kanapara C Coy 105 Bn BSF, alongwith No.05254084 Harish Singh, were so negligent that resulted in crossing over of Appx 40-50 Nos. cattle heads from their AOR from India to Bangladesh."2. At the trial held at the Summary Security Force Court, the petitioner was held guilty and the Commandant of the battalion to which the petitioner was attached, considering the past service record of the petitioner levied th...
Devraj Vs. Bses Yamuna Power Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2011
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 impugns the order dated 16th November, 2009 of the Office of Electricity Ombudsman constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003. The only question falling for adjudication being as to whether the electricity dues claimed from the petitioner are time barred or not, need was not felt to call for any counter affidavit and the counsel for the respondent appearing on advance notice heard finally.2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner has an industrial electricity connection; no bills with respect thereto were raised since the date of installation; the petitioner in the year 2003 approached the Permanent Lok Adalat with the grievance of the bills having not been raised; the Permanent Lok Adalat vide order dated 14 th August, 2003, finding a total sum of `94,446/- to be then due from the ...
National Small Industries Corp. Ltd. Vs. Siddhartha Pharmachem and anr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2011
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 Digest?1. This is a suit for recovery of 89,04,274.95. The plaintiff is a government company registered under Companies Act, 1956. Defendant No.1 which is also a company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956, through defendant No.2, who is its director, approached the plaintiff company on 7th May 1997, seeking financial assistance under plaintiff's Integrated Marketing Support Programme. Pursuant to negotiations between the parties, they entered into an agreement dated 29th August 1997, whereby plaintiff agreed to finance/discount the bills drawn by various small scale industrial units on defendant No.1, to the extent of Rs.60 Lacs. Defendant No.1 pledged its 30 Lacs shares in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant No.2 executed a Deed of Guarantee in favour of the plaintiff company and also gave an undertaking not to sell,...
Jaipal Singh Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2011
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. The petitioner Jai Pal Singh was enrolled in BSF as a constable on 1.7.1969 and earned promotions and as of the year 1998 had earned the rank of a Sub Inspector. He was attached to 131st Bn BSF on 26.12.1998. In the year 2000 he was deployed at BOP Bhatgachi, Nadia as Post Commander of E Coy, 131st Bn BSF. As per the prosecution one SI Jaibir Singh unearthed a cattle smuggling racket at the BOP Bhatgachi in which it further surfaced that petitioner had been giving safe passage to smugglers.2. The Commandant of the Battalion ordered Record of Evidence to be drawn up and detailed Asstt.Cmdt.S.K Majumdar, 131st Bn BSF to prepare the Record of Evidence. The Record of Evidence and Additional Record of Evidence was prepared on the basis of which it was prima facie established that the allegations against the petitioner o...
Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence Vs. Brijesh Kanodia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2011
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 under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner for cancellation of bail of the respondent/accused granted by learned ACMM vide order dated 18th September 2010 on the ground that the learned ACMM in this case transgressed all limits of propriety and acted as a part of investigation and then heard the bail application himself. The other grounds for cancellation of bail are on merits which this Court is not considering.2. While respondent was in judicial custody, an application was made by the petitioner department to make enquiries from the respondent /accused in Central Jail, Tihar, Delhi under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act so as to complete certain aspects of the investigation. The permission was sought so that Mr. Anil Chandeliya, Senior Intelligence Officer may visit Cen...
M/S. Padmini Technologies Ltd. Vs. T.S. Sawhney and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. CO. APPLS. 1652/2009, 1967/2010, 1968/2010, 1971/2010, 1972/2010These applications have been filed seeking interim reliefs/directions.As I plan to dispose of the main appeal today itself on merits, no further orders are called for in the present applications. Accordingly, the present applications stand disposed of. CO. APPL. 1969/2010In this application, respondents have prayed for stay of proceedings initiated against them by third parties under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.In my opinion, no relief can be granted against third parties in the present application. Accordingly, t...
Jindal Menthol India Ltd. Vs. Mr. J.C.Khandelwal and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2011
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 Digest?1. This is a suit filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of Rs.42,15,138.22. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff company had advanced an inter-corporate deposit of Rs.50 lakhs, for 90 days, to a Company PAN Asia Industries Limited vide two agreements, both dated 16.1.1996. The deposit carried interest rate of 28% per annum. The amount of interest for 90 days, the period of inter-corporate deposit, was deducted at the time of disbursal. Defendants No.1 to 3 stood guarantors for repayment of the deposit. Since there was default in repayment of the deposit, the plaintiff served a notice dated 15.9.1997 to the borrower as well as the guarantors seeking repayment of the deposit. The deposit was, however, not repaid either by the borrower or by the guarantors. The plaintiff made ...
M.S. Kabli Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2011
1. Whether reporters of the local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ORDER1. The Petitioner, a practising Chartered Accountant, is the sole proprietor of M/s. M.S. Kabli & Company. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 28th July 2005 passed by the Regional Director (Northern Region), Ministry of Company Affairs, Government of India according approval under Section 224 (7) of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) for removal of the Petitioner as statutory auditor of M/s. Super Cassette Industries Limited (SCIL).2. The Petitioner was first appointed as the statutory auditor of SCIL in the year 1992. Thereafter, the Petitioner was reappointed as a joint statutory auditor of SCIL in the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of SCIL held on 30th September 2003 and further reappointed as such at the AGM held on 30th September 2004. On 9th May 2005 an application was filed by SCIL befor...
Rajpal Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2011
1. The petitioner by this petition has prayed that the impugned order dated 25th June 2009 passed by the Defence Ministers Appellate Committee be set aside and also to set aside the opinion of the Invaliding Medical Board held in respect of the applicant pertaining to the attributability aspect. He has further prayed that disability pension be granted with effect from 6th June 1984 along with interest @ 12% p.a. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was enrolled on 5th January 1981 as a Sailor in the Indian Navy. During his time of enrolment, he was subjected to proper medical examination and he was found fit in all respects. The petitioner was put through very tough training regimen and he successfully completed the same. On completion of the training he was posted to Naval Ship INS Vijay Durg from 1981 to 1983. Towards the end of his tenure on the ship i.e. in January 1983 he contracted a disease called Grand Mal Seizures due to stress of afloat service. 3. The petitione...
Shri Manjit Singh Mehta Vs. Shri Prabhjot Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
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 Digest?1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.50,24,000/-. The case of the plaintiff is that he had entered into an agreement with the defendant to purchase the entire Ground Floor of property No.700, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi, built on a land measuring 160 sq.yds., along with proportionate share of freehold rights underneath the aforesaid building. The sale consideration is stated to have been fixed at Rs.19 lacs.2. The plaintiff claims to have paid a sum of Rs.10 lacs to the defendant in cash vide receipt dated 20 th February, 2008. A further payment of Rs.6 lacs is alleged to have been made4 to the defendant on 7 th April, 2008. It is further alleged that the defendant cancelled the Agreement on 25th April, 2008 and agreed to pay double the amount of earnest money and part payment i.e., Rs.32 lacs to him. The defendant...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »