Delhi Court July 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.
G.L. Chawla and ors. Vs. State (Cbi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-2011
1. These appeals arise out of a common impugned judgment dated 4 th March, 1994 whereby the Appellants were convicted for offences punishable under Section 120B, read with Section 420 IPC and Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short the „POC Act) and for substantive offences punishable under Section 420 IPC and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the POC Act and the order on sentence dated 4th April, 1994 whereby they were directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and a fine of `50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC and 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the POC Act; Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and a fine of `50,000 each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and RI for o...
Bhupender Lal Ghai Vs. Crown Buildtech Private Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-2011
1. The applications, i.e. I.A. No.5824/2011 and I.A. No.5823/2011 had been jointly filed by the parties, duly signed by the parties and their respective counsels and also supported by the affidavits of the petitioner and Mr. Surendra Vasudeva, authorized representative of the respondent, with the prayer that the Court may allow the payment of additional fee to the learned sole Arbitrator in accordance with the Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre (Arbitrators Fees) Rules to be shared equally, after deducting the amount of Rs.2 lacs, which was the lump sum fee fixed by the court in two cases, including the present. The need for hearing detailed submissions of the learned counsel and for passing this order has arisen, as the respondent has sought to withdraw its consent and sought to allege bias against the learned Arbitrator. 2. The parties entered into two contacts dated 23.02.2007 which contain arbitration agreements in clauses 43 and 37 respectively. The arbitration agreements provide...
Mr. Sattar Ali and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-2011
1. The five petitioners are aggrieved from the action of the respondent MCD of demolishing their properties without notice. It is further their plea that the houses of the five petitioners only were targeted and no action has been taken with respect to about 100 other houses on the same road. 2. Notice of the petition was issued on 6th October, 2010. The counsel for the petitioners on that date informed that though the houses of other petitioners have been fully demolished, the house of one of the petitioners was only partly demolished. This Court vide order of the said date directed maintenance of status quo i.e. neither the respondent MCD was to take any further action with respect to the properties nor the petitioners were to alter the status thereof. Pleadings have since been completed and the counsels for the parties have been heard. 3. The five petitioners claim to be owners of properties Nos.1, T-1/439, 434 and 147 (one part of which is stated to be belonging to the petitioner N...
Gurvinder Singh Saini Vs. School Management of Guru Harkishan Public S ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-2011
1. The grievance of the petitioner claiming to be the Staff Secretary of the staff of respondent no.1 Guru Harkishan Public School, Hari Nagar, Delhi in this petition stated to be filed for benefit of and to claim directions for the entire staffs of the said School, is of non-compliance by the respondent no.1 GHP School, Hari Nagar, Delhi of Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act. It is contended that the School is not paying to its staff the emoluments as being payable by Schools of Corresponding Status run by the Delhi Government. 2. Notice of the writ petition was issued and pleadings have been completed. 3. The counsel for the respondent no.1 School has today explained the difficulties for the reasons whereof it is admitted that the School is unable to pay the emoluments as per above terms. It is further informed that the respondent no.4 Directorate of Education (DOE) has already for the said reason derecognized the School on 4th February, 2011; that an appeal of the School t...
Palam JaIn Educational and Welfare Society Vs. Director General of Inc ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-2011
1. The petitioner, Palam Jain Educational and Welfare Society, has prayed for issue of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 26th September, 2008, dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short). In the impugned order it has been held that (1) The petitioner has not been solely established for educational purposes, as two of its main objects are : (a) to establish, manage, administer hostels for students who come to Delhi for competitive examinations, taking coaching for competitive examinations; (b) to establish, administer reading rooms or library for providing facilities for research in spiritualism, yoga, cultures, traditions, folk arts and various schools of philosophy. (2) That the word 'education' has to be given restrictive meaning and connote process of training and developing knowledge, skilled mind or character of students by schooling/university/formal educational process (refer Sole Trus...
Seema Bansal and anr. Vs. D.D.A.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-2011
1. The challenge in these petitions is to the demand of the respondent DDA for unearned increase. The petitioner in each of the cases is the purchaser in an auction held in the year 2005 by the Delhi Financial Corporation (DFC) (not a party in these proceedings) of the plots of land admeasuring 44 and 50 sq.m. respectively in Pocket-F, PVC Bazar, Tikri Kalan, Delhi. DFC came to auction the said plots for the reason of the original allottees of the plots having failed to re-pay the dues of DFC. The petitioners thereafter as per the terms of the said auction applied to the respondent DDA for mutation/transfer and execution of lease deed of the said plots in their favour. The respondent DDA in the year 2007, communicated the unearned increase payable by each of the petitioners. Impugning the computation of the said unearned increase, the present writ petitions have been filed. 2. Though pursuant to the allotment of the plots aforesaid by the respondent DDA, perpetual lease deed were to be...
M/S Sheiba Vision Exports Pvt. Ltd. Etc. Vs. Inder Dev Prasad
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-2011
1. The petition impugns the award dated 8th February, 2008 of the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference: "Whether Sh. Inder Dev Prasad has left the job after full & final settlement of his accounts or his services have been terminated illegally and / or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?" and granting the relief to the respondent workman of reinstatement with consequential benefits and continuity of service but without any back wages. 2. Though this writ petition was filed in or about May, 2008 but adjournments were sought for addressing on admission from time to time till 19th January, 2009 when notice was directed to be issued to the respondent workman. The summons sent to the respondent workman came back unserved with the report that the address was not correct. The petitioner thereafter furnished fresh address of the respondent workman on which the respondent workman was repor...
Ravina and Associates Pvt. Limited and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-2011
1. This is an application for review of the decision dated 20th April, 2011. It is filed by Ravina & Associates Private Limited, the writ petitioner, who is hereinafter referred to as the applicant. 2. In paragraph 4 of the review application, it is stated that inadvertent factual errors have occurred in the decision dated 20th April, 2011, namely: (a) The applicant had received Rs.111,72,52,695/- in the financial years relevant to the assessment years 2004-05 to 2006-07 and not Rs.108,39,46,971/- during assessment years 2004-05 to 2006-07. The figure of Rs.108,39,46,971/- represents the amount deposited in Natwest Bank, London and remaining Rs.3,33,06,123/- was deposited in the Deutsche Bank, New Delhi. (b) In paragraph 12 of the decision dated 20th April, 2011, it is mentioned that the date 6th March, 2006, when the FIR was registered by the CBI has to be kept in mind, but this reasoning/finding is not correct because the applicant was not under an obligation in law to declare/di...
Ravina Khurana Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-2011
1. Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that inadvertent factual errors have occurred in the decision dated 20th April, 2011 and these have been mentioned in paragraph 4 of the review application. The errors pointed out are :- (a) In the original returns for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2004- 05, the applicant Ravina Khurana had not included income earned outside India and deposited in the Bank Account maintained with Natwest Bank, London, but this was because the applicant was not aware of the liability to pay tax in India on the said amount. However, the applicant subsequently voluntarily vide intimations dated 1st April, 2006 and 11th April, 2006, informed the authorities about her tax liability. (b) The FIR was not registered against the applicant - Ravina Khurana but is in respect of Rs.97,13,86,901/- received and deposited in Natwest Bank, by Ravina & Associates Pvt. Limited. (c) Ravina Khurana had no knowledge about the FIR registered on 6th March, 2006, till...
M/S Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. Vs. M/S Ntpc Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-2011
1. In the process of setting up the Nabinagar Thermal Power Project at Stage-1, respondent no.1 issued an invitation for bids (ITB) dated 20.08.2008 for an induced draft cooling tower package (in short, IDCT) required for the said turnkey project. It is the say of the petitioner that from 20.08.2008 till 27.10.2009 various clarifications were issued and amendments made and it is only on 27.10.2009 that the bids submitted in pursuance to the instructions to bidders (in short, ITB) were opened. The petitioner was declared second lowest bidder ( in short, L-2) while respondent no.3 as lowest bidder ( in short, L-1). 2. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that R-3 was declared as a successful bidder although it did not possess the necessary and mandatory qualifying requirements, as contemplated under Clause 8.3(c)(i) of the ITB read with clause 6.1 of the Invitation for Bids (in short, IFB). The petitioner sen...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »