Delhi Court March 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.
Madan Lal Kaushik Vs. Shree Yog Mayaji Temple and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
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 this appeal, the appellant seeks to impugn the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge dated 10 th February, 2004 whereby Suit No.85/03 filed by Shree Yog Mayaji Temple was decreed and Suit No.03/04/93 filed by Madan Lal Kaushik was dismissed.2. At the outset, it must be noted that the plaintiffs in Suit No.85/03, who are arrayed as respondents in the present appeal, namely, Shree Yog Mayaji Temple and Others had filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC praying for the passing of a decree in the suit while certain preliminary issues had been framed in the case of Suit No.03/04/93 filed by the appellant herein, namely, Madan Lal Kaushik, to which I shall presently advert.3. The facts may be recapitulated in extenso as it is these facts which are material for the purpose of deciding the present appe...
interocean Shipping (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not Yes.3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes. in the Digest ?1. These four writ petitions have been filed by Interocean Group of Companies/concerns and as common issues/contentions have been raised, they are being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of convenience, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9394/2009 filed by Interocean Shipping (I) Pvt. Ltd., is being treated as the lead case.2. The aforesaid W.P.(C) No. 9394/2009 was filed on 27th May, 2009. Vide order dated 14th July, 2009, notice to show cause was issued in the writ petition and on the interim application, it was directed that the proceedings on the basis of impugned show cause notice could continue but the final order shall not be given effect to without leave of the Court. The said interim order has continued till date. The aforesaid writ petition was amended after the assessment order dated 26th Oc...
Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. The appellant-assessee herein is a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) and is primarily engaged in hire, purchase, lease and financing. For the instant Assessment Year, i.e., 1998-99, the appellant filed income tax return declaring a loss of `3,82,00,783/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) accepting the returned loss. Return of income was revised on 27.12.1999, declaring a loss of `4,26,50,098/-. The revised return was also processed under Section 143(1) of the Act, at the returned loss. During the instant assessment year, the appellant had incurred an expenditure of `52,70,636/- on account of commission paid to the Direct Selling Agents (DSA) for their services in sourcing hirers in the year in which the loan is disbursed and debited its Profit & Loss account by a sum of `48,38,636/- for the purpose of accounting was treated as deferred revenue expenditure. The appellant claimed a de...
Ghanshyam Singh Rawat and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2011
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 assailed order dated 10th June, 2009 taking cognizance of the offences under Section 499, 500 IPC and order dated 4th July, 2009 passed by learned ACMM summoning the petitioners as accused to face trial under Sections 499 and 500 IPC.2. A perusal of order of the trial court and the complaint filed by the respondent and also the record would show that the respondent no.2 carried out unauthorized construction of property bearing number 168, Nesh Villa Road, Dehradun, Uttrakhan. The petitioners, being neighbours and affected by unauthorized construction, made complaints to different authorities. The allegations contained in the complaint have been reproduced by the learned MM on the basis of which he summoned the petitioners to face trial. The allegations are as follows:a. Is ma...
Jaykal Exports Ltd. and ors. Vs. N.C.T. of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2011
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 this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of criminal complaint No. 46/PF/DA/2002 under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act ("PFA Act", for short).2. A sample of wafer biscuits belonging to the petitioner company was picked up by Food Inspector for testing adulteration. The test report of public analyst showed that the sample contained Tilfany Banana Cream wafers in 30 gm original packet and the packet was having all declarations except Batch Number and Best Before. Colour and flavor were declared as per the rules. The sample was found conforming to the norms of PFA Act. However, it was opined by Public Analyst that the sample was misbranded as there was violation of Rule 32 (e) (I), Rule 24 and Rule 64 BB of PFA Act. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that there was no adulterati...
Sunny Kanodia Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2011
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 the judgment should be reported in Digest Yes. 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the impugned detention order F.No.673/13/2010-CUS VIII dated 07.07.2010, issued under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short COFEPOSA Act'). The detenu is the nephew of Bhimendra Kumar Goyal @ B.K. Gupta @ Munna Goyal (hereinafter referred to as detenu).2. The detenu was detained on 22.09.2010 under COFEPOSA Act pursuant to the impugned order dated 07.07.2010 issued by respondent No. 2 which was served upon him along with the grounds of detention with a view to prevent him from engaging in smuggling, abetting the smuggling, engaging in transporting, con...
M/S Ansaldo Caldaie Boilers India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ano ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?2. To be referred to Reporters or not ?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?1. The writ petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to remedy its grievance qua respondent No.2 i.e., NTPC Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as NTPC). The grievance of the petitioner in short is its exclusion from the tendering process initiated by NTPC. The writ petitioner amongst others had tendered its bid in response to a tender floated by NTPC. By virtue of the said tender, NTPC sought bids with respect to Steam Generators package (in short 'steam generators'). NTPC by virtue of the said tender sought offers in respect of 11 units of steam generators of 660 MW in respect of its projects at Mouda, STTP, Stage-II, Solapur STP, Nabinagar STPP, Meja TPP and Raghunathpur TPP Phase-II. Insofar as Nabinagar STTP and Meja TPP were concerned, these were projects which NTPC had ro...
R.K.Nimoria Vs. Uoi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2011
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. By way of instant writ petition, filed in the year 2006, the petitioner claims that his right to be promoted to the rank of Inspector with effect from 12.12.1971 has been violated. He alleges that his batch mates who were of 1968 batch and junior to him as Sub-Inspectors were promoted on said date without his knowledge and behind his back. The petitioner has also prayed for his further consequential promotions as Assistant Commandant, Deputy Commandant, Second in Command and Commandant with effect from 14.06.1976, 20.05.1986, 07.08.1984 and 23.10.1996 respectively.2. It is obvious that said prayer is founded on his claim for promotion with effect from 12.12.1971. The further consequential prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition is for re-fixation of his pension accordingly. The petitioner has also questi...
Ex.Constable Shiv Ram Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2011
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. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Another instance of conflict between India and Bharat. The social norms in Rural India are not accepting the changes which the legislature intends to bring. Hindu Marriage Act 1955! It is observed more in breach rather than in compliance in rural areas. The reason appears to be that the rural society is not in sync with the modern ethos which the city bred propagates.2. Petitioner, Ex.Ct.Shiv Ram was admittedly married to one Kalo Devi in April 2000. He and the lady are residents of two different villages in Tehsil Salooni, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh. It is the customs which govern their social living and not the legislation. May be, the Government hardly reaches out to rural areas and thus they decide to live by their own norms.3. The two could not pull along. The villa...
J.P. Singh and anr Vs. Vinay Kanodia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2011
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 this petition the petitioner has assailed order dated 1st December, 2009 of learned ACMM taking cognizance of the offence under Section 323/348/365/368/506 read with Section 34 and 120-B IPC on a complaint made by the respondent and summoning the petitioner and other officers of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (henceforth referred to as "DGCEI" for short) to face prosecution and trial of the said offences.2. The facts necessary to decide this petition are that the office of DGCEI had received information about large scale evasion of excise duty by M/s. Vinay Wires and Poly Products Pvt. Ltd., Unit-I & II at Rania, Kanpur Dehat and other related establishments. The officers of DGCEI, R.K. Puram conducted search of the residential premises of Directors and business/factory premises of the company in June...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »