Delhi Court March 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Association of National Board Accredited Institutions and ors Vs. Unio ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
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 the Digest? Yes. 1. The challenge in this petition is to the action of the respondent No.2 National Board of Examinations (NBE) of making certain changes in selection procedure for admission of the "Broad Speciality Candidates" to the Diplomate of National Board (DNB) Programme. Earlier, NBE held a Common Entrance Test (CET), which was essentially an eligibility test and all those passing / clearing the said test were eligible to selection by any of the Institutes / Hospitals accredited with NBE with each Institute / Hospital holding its own further test / interview for such selection. Under the changed procedure, NBE is to, as per the position / rank in the merit list of CET, hold centralized counselling and allocate the applicants / students as per the choice of Institute / Hospital filled by them and as per their ran...
Unico Leasing Ltd and ors. Vs. Uco Bank
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
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 respondent-bank granted loan facility to petitioner no.1. Late Sh R L Jain (represented through LRs (a), (b) and (c) as petitioner no.2), petitioner no.3 and petitioner no.4 are stated to be erstwhile directors of petitioner no.1 who stood guarantee for the loan. The loan was in the form of a cash credit limit of Rs 70 lacs granted in August, 1989. The limit was enjoyed by petitioner no.1 but the amount was not being paid. The debt was acknowledged from time to time. On 30.09.1992 the debt was acknowledged at Rs 1,02,57,164 vide its acknowledgement of debt dated 14.01.1993. The OA was ultimately filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in 1997. 2. In terms of order dated 05.09.1997 summons and notices were directed to be issued to the respondent in the OA. It was specifically directed "it shall be the duty of...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Oswal Chemical and Fertilisers Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
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 the Digest? NO1. For the assessment year 1996-97, the respondent/assessee filed its return of income declaring loss of Rs.2,39,12,90,363/-. The assessee is engaged in the manufacturing of fertilisers at a plant installed at Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh. In this assessment year, the assessee had, in the return, shown the plant and machinery worth Rs.6.97 crores purchased from M/s.Bermaco Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the supplier"). The assessment was framed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") at a total of Rs.2,34,79,94,444/-. However, thereafter a notice under Section 148 of the Act was served upon the assessee seeking to reassess the proceedings on the ground that the assessee had never purchased aforesaid machinery worth Rs.6.97 crores from the supplier and it w...
Shri Rajesh Jaina and ors. Vs. Shri Tapesh JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may 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. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 13.4.2009 which had modified the finding of the trial judge dated 28.4.2006. Vide the judgment and decree dated 28.4.2006 the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking recovery of Rs.98,880/- against the four defendants had been decreed against the defendant no.1 alone. The suit qua other defendants had stood dismissed. Appeal had been filed before the first appellate court. Vide the impugned judgment the suit stood dismissed against all the four defendants.2. This is a second appeal. The substantial questions of law have been embodied on page 3 of the body of the appeal. On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted that Section 10 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 defines "payment in due course". Section 10 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1...
Pankaj Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Bharat Aluminium Compan ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may 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? Yes1. The present winding up petition has been filed under Sections 433(e) and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short "the Act").2. The relevant facts of the present case are that both the petitioner and respondent are engaged in the business of manufacturing of aluminium products. During the course of their business dealings, the petitioner had purchased from respondent, aluminium products like ingots, wire rods and sheets/coils. For this purpose, petitioner and respondent had executed a number of Memorandums of Understanding. The first Memorandum of Understanding executed between the parties dated 1 st April, 2003 is reproduced hereinbelow:-Ref MKT/MOU/ Dated 1st April, 2003MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTADING MOU BETWEEN M/S. ANISH METALS PVT. LTD., & Group Companies and Bharat Aluminum Company Limited (BALCO) ...
Nb Sub Younas Masih Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1. The petitioner (Nb Sub Younas Masih) approached the Delhi High Court by filing W.P (C) No. 4295 of 1996 challenging the General Court Martial (GCM) proceedings commenced on 16.5.1994, whereby he was held guilty of having committed an offence under Army Act Section 46(a) and sentenced to be dismissed from service. On formation of the Armed Forces Tribunal, the writ petition was transferred to this Bench and is being disposed of by this judgment treating it as an appeal under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007. 2. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is: On posting to 2 Signal Training Centre for instructional duties, the appellant joined on 3.2.1992. On 28.10.1993, at about 1930h, he asked the newly appointed Recruit Uday Bhan, who was standing in the verandah of C Company to check the bathroom lights. When Recruit Uday Bhan went inside the bathroom, the appellant followed him and got himself masturbated from the recruit. On 30.10.1993, at about 0900h, when Uday Bhan wa...
Ex. Sep. Shambhu Singh Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1. The appellant had filed WPC 7975/2005 in the Honble Delhi High Court. The same was transferred to the AFT on 5 Nov,2009. The appellant has prayed that the findings and sentence of summary court martial (SCM) dt. 19 May, 2000 be quashed and he be reinstated with all consequential benefits. 2. The appellant was enrolled in the Army in Oct,1993. The appellant states that whilst posted at 305 Field Ambulance he was granted leave from 16 Oct,97 to 11 December,1997. While returning back to his unit, after expiry of leave, the appellant states that he fell ill at Rangiya and returned back to his village for Ayurvedic treatment and rejoined voluntarily at AMC Center, Lucknow. From there he was directed to report to MH Jabalpur but on the way got sick again and went back to his village for further ayurvedic treatment. The appellant states that when his health improved he wrote to the Army Authorities enquiring where he should rejoin. He was directed by the Army Authorities to report to MH Ja...
Shri Arun Khanna Vs. Shri Vinod Kumar Khanna and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may No. be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.3. Whether the judgment should be reported No. in Digest?I.A. Nos. 9150/2010 (O.14 R.5 CPC by plaintiff) and 8536/2010 (O.14 R.5 CPC by D-1)1. The issues in this case were framed on 11 th April, 2008 and read as under:-1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration, declaring the plaintiff No.1 the owner of the undivided 1/6th share in plot bearing No.39/71, West Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, as prayed for in prayer (A)? OPP.2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of specific performance against the defendant No.1 by enforcement of MOU dated 29.6.2006, as prayed for in prayer (B)? OPP.3. In the alternate, whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of damages of Rs.1.00 crore against the defendant No.1?OPP.4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of perpetual injunction against the defendant No.1 in respect of the portion C of the suit prop...
Roshan Lal and anr. Vs. Uoi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed Yes to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes1. The Railway Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants who are the dependents of the deceased found dead on a platform though was a bona fide passenger for the reason that there were no external injuries on the body of the appellant and the medical report prepared by the concerned authorities have opined that the death of the deceased was on account of administration of poison which is proved by Ex.AW1/13, part of the post-mortem report. There is no other evidence which has been led on behalf of the appellant to show as to how it is the case of untoward incident which may fasten a liability upon the respondent railways.2. The relevant observations made by the Railway Claims Tribunal while deciding issue no. 3 & 4 are reproduced hereunder: On the other hand, the circumstances...
Shyambeer @ Somvir Vs. the State(Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ?1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 04.09.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.83/02 FIR No.210/02 under Section 392/397 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act P.S. Hari Nagar and the consequent order on sentence dated 06.09.2003 whereby the appellant has been held and convicted for the offences punishable under Section 392 and 397 IPC as also Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced accordingly.2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of this case are that on 03.05.2002 complainant Kamlesh Chand Meena (PW1) was travelling in bus route No.740 bound for Mandi House. When the bus reached near Sagarpur bus stand, the appellant, who was carrying a knife in his hand, removed Rs.4,500/- from his pocket. When he raised an alarm, the appellant pointed the knife...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »