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.
Wollaque Ventilation and Conditioning Pvt Vs. Sterling Tools Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
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. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned ADJ on 15.07.2010 whereby the learned ADJ has allowed an application filed by respondent under Order VII Rule 10 CPC and has directed return of the plaint with a further direction to present the same in the Court of competent jurisdiction i.e. Faridabad within 4 weeks.2. In their aforesaid application it was submitted on behalf of the respondent that in view of the exclusionary provision in the purchase order on the basis of which the appellant had supplied the goods to the respondent, Delhi Court could not have entertained the suit filed by the appellant. It was only Faridabad Court which could have decided the lis between the parties and, therefore, the suit could have been filed by the appellant only at Faridabad.3. In this case, the respondent ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. VirgIn Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
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. Following two additions, inter alia, were made by the Assessing Officer (AO) while completing the assessment of the respondent assessee herein, which pertains to the Assessment Year 2002-03: (i) Addition of `55,56,620 by disallowing the loss claimed by the assessee on account of sale of shares of M/s. Doogar & Associates (Pvt.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Doogar'); and(ii) Addition of `9,13,081 on account of expenses debited to Profit and Loss account under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act ('the Act' for brevity).2. Insofar as first addition is concerned, the assessee had shown in Profit & Loss account the decrease/increase in stock of shares `2,02,19,778. It was explained by the assessee before the AO that opening share stocks of Doogar was 20,35,000 and purchased the same @ `10 per share and the same...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bindals Apparels
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
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. The assessee is a firm which was constituted in July, 1997 with Shri R.D. Gupta, his wife Smt. Kusum Gupta and a company M/s. Bindal Apparels Pvt. Ltd. as partners, while Shri Anuj Bindal was admitted to the benefits of the partnership, being a minor. With effect from 03.04.1998, when Shri Anuj Bindal Attained majority, a fresh partnership deed was executed. The assessee is engaged in the business of trading of garments and other items like artificial jewellery, artificial garments plants, purses, etc. The assessee carried on its business from 47, Bungalow Road, Delhi. This property does not belong to the assessee firm but was purchased by its four partners from one Shri P.C. Jain. Four partners are the owners of different portions of this property which was purchased by separate sale deed. During the survey, t...
Sh.Devender Singh Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO the Digest?1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 10th November, 2009 of the Director General, Central Industrial Security Force imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner.2. The petitioner was posted and functioning as Deputy Commandant, CISF Unit IISCO, Burnpur when during 2002, a Seesham tree fell in his residential compound. He got the tree cut it into small pieces through CISF personnel and got the logs made through the saw mill at Kulti on 13th and 14th October, 2003 and finally transported them to his native place on 18th October, 2003 instead of intimating the authorities about felling of tree.3. The act of the petitioner was perceived as misconduct and a charge sheet dated 7th April, 2005 was issued to him, after conducting a preliminary inquiry, stipulating that an enquiry is pro...
Kamrul Haq Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
ORDER1. The appellant-Kamrul Haq by the impugned judgment dated 10th September, 2004 has been convicted under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the Act) and by order dated 16th September, 2004 has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 however has been granted to the appellant.2. This appeal was adjourned repeatedly to await the decision of the Division Bench on the question, whether the percentage of THC in the seized material, i.e. Charas, was relevant or not. The Division Bench in Dilip v. State 2010 (4) JCC 169 (Narcotic) has held that in the case of Charas percentage of THC is not relevant for deciding whether the quantity seized is commercial quantity or not. The appellant during pendency of the appeal was rel...
Ram Shah Charitable Trust Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
ORDER1. By order dated 27th January, 2010, learned counsel for the respondent - Director General, Income Tax (Exemption) was asked to take instructions whether the matter can be remanded for fresh consideration on the application under Section 10(23C)(vi a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, in Short). Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to obtain instructions in the said regard.2. In view of what has been stated in the order dated 27th January, 2010 and in view of the factual matrix of the case, we are of the view that this is an appropriate case which should be remanded for fresh decision.3. The petitioner Tirath Ram Shah Charitable Trust established and has been running a hospital-cum-nursing home since 1955. The said trust was granted registration under Section 12A and approval under Section 80G of the Act. On 6th November, 2003, Director General, Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata notified that the petitioner was covered under Section 10(23C) (vi a) of the Act.4. On 5...
Shree Ram Sharma Vs. Mohd. Sabir
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
1. Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be referred in the Digest? Yes 1. The present revision petition under section 25-B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short as "Act") has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.05.2009 passed by Additional Rent Controller (for short as "controller") Delhi, vide which leave to contest has been granted to the respondent tenant.2. Undisputedly, the petitioner is the landlord in respect of premises bearing No.2, Satnam Park, Chander Nagar Road, Delhi 110051 admeasuring 190 sq. yards. The respondent is a tenant of the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 825/- p.m. excluding the electricity and other charges for the last about 39 years. The respondent has been running a hair cutting saloon in the tenanted premises. The petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 70 years and his family consists of his ailing wife aged about...
M/S G4s Security Services (India) Pvt Ltd Vs. Group-4 Securicor Employ ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
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 in Digest? No 1. This is a suit for permanent injunction. Defendants No. 1 to 3 are three separate unions of the employees of the plaintiff, which is engaged in the business of providing security services. It is alleged in the plaint that some employees, in connivance with the unions, started stopping the ingress and egress of the other employees and threatening to demonstrate in front of the offices/residences of the management. The plaintiff company was, therefore, constrained to file CS(OS) No. 1746/2006 wherein an interim injunction was granted restraining the defendants from picketing within 100 meters from the gates of the offices and residences of officers of the plaintiff company and they were further restrained from blocking the ingress and egress of the staff and workers of the plaintiff company. That suit is still p...
Mohd.Mahfooz Alam Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
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. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 26.10.98, the appellant Mohd.Mahfooz Alam has been convicted for an offence punishable under section 302 IPC. Vide order on sentence dated 26.10.98, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine in sum of `5000/-; in default to undergo RI for six months.2. Conceding that in view of the testimony of Mohd.Zakir PW-4; the testimony of Mohd.Saeed PW-10, the 2 witnesses to the incident and the testimony of Wahiduddin PW-3 and Zia-Ul-Haque PW-11 who reached on hearing the noise upstairs and apprehended the appellant at the spot, it stands established that the appellant inflicted 2 stab injuries on the chest cavity of the deceased Shamim Ahmed, counsel urges that the attendant circumstances wherefrom appellant's intention or knowledge could be gathered makes...
Sushil Kumar Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
ORDER1. The petitioner Sushil Kumar was appointed as a Constable in Delhi Police on 12th January, 1998. His services were terminated on 20th April, 1999 on the ground of unauthorized absence, but on his representation dated 11th May, 1999, the aforesaid order of termination was recalled and he was reinstated in service with the direction to initiate departmental proceedings. Departmental proceedings ended in award of punishment of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 13th November, 2001. The said order has become final and binding and is not subject matter of challenge.2. The petitioner again absented himself from duty from 11th August, 2001. Till 13th November, 2001, three absentee notices were issued to the petitioner on 29th August, 2001, 8th October, 2001 and 22nd October, 2001 with a direction to report for duty immediately, but without positive response. The petitioner was directed to report to C.M.O., Meerut if he was ill, but he failed to do s...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »