Delhi Court June 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.
Vishwanath Khanna Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-2011
1. The petitioner is a proprietor of M/s Foto Traders, a firm started in the year 1993 to trade in gold, silver and bullion. Income Tax Department conducted a search and seizure operations on 04.02.1995 whereby cash and silver were restrained initially but subsequently seized as under: Cash `49,86,500/- Silver 222 bars of total weight 70003.859Kgs. Having market value estimated at `4,44,66,395/- by the Income Tax Department. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Investigation Circle (20)(1), New Delhi passed order under Section 132(5) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated 02.06.1995 declaring that cash found during search as unexplained and hence, cash seized of `49,86,500/- was retained and not released. Subsequently, vide another order under Section 132(5) dated 19.06.2005, various disputed additions were made and tax and penalty @200% were raised. Therefore, entire silver seized valuing `4,44,66,395/- was retained and not released. We may mention at...
Babli Brar Vs. Adesh Kanwarjit Singh Brar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-2011
1. The present Appeal assails the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 8.4.2011 dismissing the Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC for short) for rejection of the Plaint. 2. The Suit is one for Declaration, Partition and Permanent Injunction in respect of property situated at Plot No.6 in Block No.172, Jorbagh, New Delhi. The case set-out in the Plaint is that on 29.5.1952, the said Plot was acquired through a Perpetual Lease by Shri Harcharan Singh Brar, father of the Plaintiff. Construction on the said Plot was carried on the double storey residential building in 1955. The contribution of funds for the purchase and construction of this building is said to have come from the father, Late Shri Harcharan Singh Brar, the mother Mrs. Gurbinder Singh Brar and the Plaintiff himself in the proportion of 1/4, 1/4 and 1/2 respectively, though admittedly the Plaintiff was 3-5 years of age at that point in time. It has further been averred that in the...
itd Cementation India Ltd. Vs. National thermal Power Corporation Ltd. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-2011
1. This is a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Both the defendants are Government of India undertakings. Defendant No.1 awarded a contract to defendant No.2 for construction of main plant civil works, stage-II, phase-II for its thermal power plant at Kahalgaon, for an aggregate value of Rs. 49,21,27,837/-. As per a pre tender arrangement between the plaintiff and defendant No.2, the sub-contract for piling work was to be awarded by defendant No.2 which did not have requisite experience/manpower for this purpose, to the plaintiff company. Defendant No.2 accordingly awarded the aforesaid sub-contract to the plaintiff company for an aggregate sum of Rs. 14,05,98,920.37. The plaintiff company, pursuant to the award of the aforesaid work furnished a performance bank guarantee of Rs. 1,23,03,196/-. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that the sub-contracted work was completed by it by 29.6.2005 and completion of the work was also acknowledged by defendant No.2. The defect liability ...
Khan Market Traders Association and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-2011
1. The decision by Respondent No. 2 New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) to stop the free parking facility in Khan Market, New Delhi and introduce paid parking by inviting tenders is challenged in this petition by the Khan Market Traders Association (KMTA), Petitioner No.1, and its President Mr. Sanjeev Mehra, Petitioner No. 2. 2. KMTA states that it is an association of traders of Khan Market since 1950. There are around 156 shops in Khan Market apart from 74 flats on the first floor which by and large are being used for commercial purposes. Then there are 53 shops in the Prithviraj Lane Market (PR Market), 40 shops in the Lok Nayak Bhawan and 21 in the Mini Khan Market. KMTA states that the system of free parking in Khan Market has worked well. KMTA has 25 attendants managing the parking lot. The entire fund of the attendants is being collected by them by way of contributions from the shopkeepers. Due to shortage of space, KMTA had been asking NDMC and other authorities to allot more s...
B S Mathur Vs. Public Information Officer of Delhi High Court
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-2011
1. In Writ Petition (Civil) 295 of 2011, the Petitioner challenges an order dated 6th September 2010, passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) dismissing his appeal against an order dated 28th April 2010 of the Appellate Authority of the High Court of Delhi under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) declining to furnish the complete information sought by him in RTI Application No. 184 of 2008. 2. In Writ Petition (Civil) 608 of 2011 the Petitioner challenges the same order insofar as it relates to the dismissal of his Appeal Nos. 314 and 315 dated 13th August 2010 in relation to RTI Application Nos. 35 and 36 of 2010. Factual matrix 3. The Petitioner was a Member of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service. Pursuant to a Resolution dated 26th August 2008 of the Full Court, a Committee of five Judges of the High Court heard the Petitioner on 29th May 2008 and decided that it was desirable to place him under suspension pending disciplinary action. While disposing of his writ p...
Jai Pal Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-2011
1. After holding an inquiry, post service of a charge memo dated 18.7.2001, vide order dated 1.5.2002 penalty of termination from service has been inflicted upon the petitioner. Said order is under challenge. 2. Since petitioner had a right to file a statutory appeal against the aforesaid order , he did so. It resulted in the order dated 16.12.2002 being passed. The appeal was rejected. 3. Petitioner had a further remedy by way of Revision, which he exercised. The Revision has been rejected vide order dated 9.4.2003. 4. These orders are also under challenge. 5. At the outset, we may note that there are typographic errors in the writ petition. There are translation errors in the annexures. Even in the prayer clause there is a wrong reference to the date of the orders. But we note that the record of the respondent would show that the date of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is 1.5.2002. Date of the Appellate order is 16.12.2002 and that of the Revisional order is 9.4.2003. ...
Pratap Singh Vs. Chief of Army Staff and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-2011
1. Having been awarded 5 red ink entries between the years 1986 till 2000 and after issuing a notice to show cause and enabling the petitioner to submit his response to the proposed action of his being discharged from service, the competent authority passed an order that retention of petitioner in service was not warranted, resulting in the petitioner being discharged from service with pension benefits. 2. Petitioner questions his name being struck off from the strength of the Indian Army with effect from 7.8.2000. Challenge was by and under W.P.(C) No.5346/2000 which has been dismissed vide order dated 8.4.2002. Said order is under challenge in the instant appeal. 3. It may be noted that in August 1997 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner requiring him to respond to the proposed action of his being discharged from service under Army Rule 13(3) Item III (4). The action was proposed on the fact that till 1997, 4 red ink entries pertaining to 4 misdemeanours for which petitio...
Veeplast Houseware Private Ltd Vs. M/S Bonjour International and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. The plaintiff is engaged in the manufacturing and trading of various plastic products, including water jugs. The products of the plaintiff are being sold under the name Nayasa and the plaintiff claims PAN India presence in its field. The plaintiff-company has three manufacturing plants and employees more than 400 workers. In the year 2004, the plaintiff-company conceptualized and created a novel design to be used for water jugs. The design was registered vide Design No. 194990 in Class 07-01 and the registration is stated to be valid till 23rd July, 2014. In the first week of May 2001, the plaintiff came to know about use of a design by the defendant on their water jugs being sold under the name Bonjour Maharaja. The case of the plaintiff company is that the design adopted by the defendant for its jug is identical to the registered design of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has accordingly sought an injunction, restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale an...
Harvinder Singh Vs. the State (Govt. of N.C.T)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27th July, 2010 passed in Sessions Case No. 37/2009, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, arising out of FIR No.426/2003, registered at Police Station I.P. Estate, under Sections 363/302/201/34 IPC wherein the appellant, namely, Harvinder Singh has been convicted under Section 302/201 IPC. The appeal is also directed against the order of sentence dated 30.07.2010 whereby the appellant was sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default to undergo S.I. for three months and under Section 201 IPC to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for two months. It is further ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. On 30th November, 2003 at about 11.40 pm, complainant Avtarjeet Singh (PW2) went to Police Post J.P.N. Hospital, P.S. I.P. Estate, and informed that his daug...
Brij Kishore Mishra Vs. Shri Rajendra Pd. Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 05.03.2011 which has endorsed the finding of the trial Judge dated 25.08.2010 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Rajendra Prasad Sharma seeking possession and damages qua the suit property i.e. property bearing No. K-412, Gali No. 7 Gautam Vihar, Ghonda, Delhi had been decreed in favour of the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff claimed himself to the owner of the aforenoted suit property; erstwhile owner was Durga Devi; plaintiff had by virtue of a Will dated 11.10.2004 of Durga Devi become the owner of the suit property. Contention was that the erstwhile owner Durga Devi had permitted the defendant to occupy one room in the aforenoted suit premises (as depicted in red colour in the site plan); this was for a period of two months only on the specific request of the defendant; permission had been granted as the brother of the defendant was known to Durga Devi. Inspite of requests of the plaintiff asking the defendant to vacate the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »