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.
Kashmiri Lal Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
ORDERCM No. 5827/2011 (for exemption)Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.LPA No. 265/2011 & CM Nos. 5825/2011 (delay), 5826/2011 (stay)Ms. Dharam Devi had preferred LPA No. 142/2011 which has been dismissed by a detailed order passed by us on 10th February, 2011. For the sake of convenience, the said order is reproduced below:-"LPA No. 142/2011 &CM; No. 2600/2011 (stay)In this Letter Patent Appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 9th November, 2010 dismissing the W.P.(C) No. 11117/2009 filed by the appellant.2. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the history of the litigation between the parties and also drawn our attention to the paragraph 11 of the impugned order dated 9th November, 2010 in which the learned Single Judge has referred to 1996 amendment to the Rule 6(j)(i) of the Delhi Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1959 (Rules for short). It is pointed out that in the present case, the said amendment was not applicabl...
M.M.T.C. Limited Vs. Paras Kumar Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
1. Whether 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. 1. The present Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 1st September, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in OMP No.310/2003 dismissing the petition under Section 34 of the Act filed by the Appellant for setting aside the Award dated 9th May, 2003 passed by the sole Arbitrator Mr. Justice P.K. Bahri(Retd.). 2. The brief facts as are necessary for adjudication of the present Appeal are that:(a) The Appellant is a Government Company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of import, export and trading of various commodities.(b) In its business of exporting gold jewellery, the Appellant enters into agreements and arrangements with interested parties...
Pawan Kumar JaIn Vs. State and anr.
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 is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner Pawan Kumar Jain seeking quashing of the order dated 21.12.2005 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi in complaint case No.36/1 P.S. Roop Nagar, Delhi titled "Naresh Kumar Aggarwal v. Pawan Kumar Jain & Anr," whereby the petitioner and his co-accused were summoned to face trial for the offences under Section 420/467/468/471/34 IPC in the complaint filed by respondent No.2.2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that the complainant Naresh Kumar Aggarwal, Devender Kumar Mittal and his wife Kamini Mittal (since deceased) were co-owners of a property at Mussoorie in Uttaranchal. The parties thereafter formed a company M/s. Kumari Hotel Pvt. Ltd. It is stated that later on disputes arose between the parties ...
Virender Pal @ Neelu and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-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. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.11.1998, appellants Virender Pal @ Neelu, Sat Pal @ Pappu, Sanjay Sharma, Brij Pal @ Karate and Jitender @ Vickey as also one Raj Kumar @ Raju who died during the pendency of the appeal filed by him have been convicted for the offence of having murdered Surender @ Buddha (hereinafter referred to as the Deceased), for which offence they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine in sum of `5,000/- each; in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appellant Sat Pal has also been convicted for the offence of having attempted to murder Arvind, for which offence he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay fine in sum of `2,000/-; in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 months. Appellants Sat Pal, Vire...
G.S.Marketing Company Vs. Archana Arora and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes 1. Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to take refund/input tax credit on the additional custom duty imposed under Notification No.19/2006-CUS dated 1.3.2006 for the period between 1.3.2006 and 14.9.2006. It is apposite to mention here that that is the only prayer on the basis of which notice was issued and learned counsel for the petitioner has only addressed us on the said issue.2. The brief resume of facts which are essential to be stated for appreciating the controversy is that the petitioner is a registered dealer under Delhi Value Added Tax Act (VAT) and Central Sales Tax Act, vide TIN No. 07450307181 a...
P.R. Nair Vs. Union of India and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-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 in Digest? No 1. This petition concerns the application made by the Petitioner for conversion of the property of the Petitioner at 85, Jor Bagh, New Delhi (hereafter `the property in question') from leasehold to freehold.2. The Petitioner challenges the decision as communicated by the letter dated 4th November 2004 rejecting the application for conversion on account of non-payment of the balance conversion charges and other government dues. The Petitioner also challenges the communication dated 4th January 2005 requiring the petitioner to pay the balance conversion charges and rejecting her request for levy of token penalty in terms of the Office Order No. 23 of 1976 dated 31st March 1976.3. The property in question was purchased by the Petitioner from the Respondents on a perpetual lease basis. It is stated that after the unt...
Ram Saran @ Balli Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Order? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the Order should be reported in the Digest? Yes1. Appellant Ram Saran @ Balli impugns the judgment dated 31.07.1997 and the order on sentence dated 04.08.1997, whereby he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of `500/-. In default of payment of fine, the Appellant was sentenced to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for one month.2. The gravamen of the charge against the Appellant is that on 01.01.1995 at about 10.30 P.M. near Holy Cross School, Opposite Petrol Pump, Nangloi Road, Najafgarh, he had inflicted stab injuries on the person of Jaggu Ram (the deceased) with the intention of causing his death.3. According to the prosecution version, the Appellant and the deceased were neighbours. On 01.01.1995 at about 10:20 P.M., the deceased fel...
Castrol Limited and Others Vs. Mr. Rajinder Kumar Gupta and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?1. Permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from infringing Plaintiff's registered trademark CASTROL in the field of oils and lubricants etc. and the violation of plaintiff's copyright in the packaging material, etc., passing off, damages and delivery up, is claimed in this suit.2. Plaintiff's claims to be international manufacturer and merchants of wide range of products in automotive sector and by virtue of long standing use, publicity of the Plaintiff's product under the aforesaid trademark, it is said that the trademark CASTROL has acquired tremendous reputation in India as well as in other parts of the world. During February, 2005, Plaintiffs came to know regarding the involvement of the Defendants in counterfiet manufacturing of the oils, lubricants, greases, etc., and of its being sold in the market i...
Madhu Rani Mehra Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may Yes be allowed to see the judgment ?2. To be referred to Reporters or not Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in the Digest ?1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) by its order dated 16.07.1992 has referred the following questions, which pertain to assessment year 1980-81 for adjudication of this court."1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in taking the value of the opening stock in law in taking the value of the opening stock as on 11.11.1979 at Rs. 35,16,785/- which stock was received by the assessee on dissolution of the firm M/s Mehrae-Di-Hatti on 10.11.1979, at which point of the dissolution the said stock was valued at market price of Rs.49,19,491/-/2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in valuing the opening stock at cost though...
Oriental Bank of Commerce and anr. Vs. Pawan Kumar Aggarwal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? (No)2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? (No)3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? (No) 1. Two nationalized banks have filed separate appeals feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 02.07.2004 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge in a suit filed against them by respondent no.1-plaintiff whereby a joint and several decree for a sum of Rs.2,62,036/- alongwith interest thereon @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of the decree and @ 5% p.a. from the date of the decree till realization in full was passed against both of them. Though both the banks had filed separate appeals but the same were heard analogously and so are being disposed of also together by this common judgment.2. The case of the appellant-plaintiff(who shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff) was that his proprietorship firm by the name of M/s Bansal Industries had supplie...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »