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.
M/S. Om Parkash Malik (Huf) Vs. Adroit Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2011
1. The challenge by means of this First Appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act) is to the impugned order dated 12.2.2008 by which the objections of the appellant under Section 34 of the Act were dismissed by the trial Court. The trial Court has upheld the Award dated 22.4.2005 passed by the sole Arbitrator acting under the Bye Laws, Rules and Regulations of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. The facts of the case are that the respondent/claimant a broker filed a claim for recovery against the appellant/constituent for an amount of Rs.16,44,451/- alongwith interest besides other charges for the V-SAT equipment installed with the appellant. There was a relationship of member and constituent i.e. broker and sub-broker alleged by the respondent. The claim of the respondent/member/broker was allowed by the Arbitrator. Some of the relevant findings and observations made by the Arbitrator are contained in paras 12,...
M/S Moti Ram and Company Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2011
1. The writ petition impugns the letter dated 1st July, 2011 of the respondent to the petitioner terminating the "temporary arrangement" with the petitioner for operation by the petitioner of the company owned retail outlet at Manesar District-Gurgaon and calling upon the petitioner to hand over the said outlet to the respondent. 2. The petitioner was as far back as in the year 1962 granted dealership for operation of the retail outlet setup by the then predecessor of the respondent on land procured by the respondent on lease at Mile 13/5, Delhi- Gurgaon Border, Kapashera, New Delhi. The petitioner continued to operate the said retail outlet of the respondent under agreements with the respondent from time to time. Last such agreement was entered into between the parties on 27th September, 2001 for a period of 15 years. However the lease in favour of the respondent of the land underneath the said outlet expired on 31st March, 2007 and the respondent was required to vacate the same. Acco...
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Raj Kumar Arora and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2011
1. A complaint was filed by the Petitioner against the Respondents for offence punishable under Section 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (in short „the NDPS Act) inter alia praying to take cognizance of the offences, summon the accused, try and punish them in accordance with law. The Special Court constituted under the NDPS Act took cognizance of the offences and summoned the Respondents. Vide order dated 3rd February, 2005 charges were framed against the Respondents for offences punishable under Sections 22 (c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. In the meanwhile Rajkumar Arora Respondent No. 1 in the present case filed a bail application before this Court being Bail Application No. 205/2005. Besides the bail application of Rajkumar Arora, number of other applications were considered wherein the allegations against the accused persons were for possession of ampoules containing injectable contents of Buprenorphine. This Court heard all these petitions toge...
Shailesh Kumar and ors Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2011
1. The appellants Shailesh Kumar, Santosh and Alok Kumar are aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.05.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in sessions case no.72/2008 whereby they have been convicted under Section 120-B, Section 302 read with Section 120B and Section 201 read with Section 120B IPC. The said case arose out of FIR No. 168/2002 registered at Police Station Sarasvati Vihar. 2. The appellants are also aggrieved by the order on sentence dated 28.05.2009 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi, sentenced the appellants to rigorous imprisonment for life insofar as the offence under Section 120B IPC is concerned along with a fine of ` 5000/- each. The appellants were also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of ` 5000/- each in respect of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC. Finally, the appellants were also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of ` 1000/...
Dr. Ravi Prakash Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2011
1. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks more time to complete his submissions. Considering that the matter has been adjourned repeatedly, we are not inclined to adjourn the matter any further. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, on instructions is agreeable that the interim order granted by this Court on 18th August, 2010, restraining repatriation of the petitioner from the respondent Nos.2 and 3, to respondent No.4 be vacated, subject to the outcome of the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents is agreeable to this. 4. In the circumstances, the interim order dated 18th August, 2010 is vacated and the petitioner would be liable to be repatriated to his parent department/respondent No.4. The repatriation of the petitioner to his parent department and the plea that he is entitled to absorption shall, however, be subject to the outcome of the present petition. 5. CM No.11026/2010 stands disposed of. 6. List the petition in t...
Major Anand Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2011
A.K.Mathur, Chairperson: 1. This Writ Petition has been transferred from Delhi High Court. 2. The petitioner was commissioned in the Army Ordnance Corps on 5.3.1988 and on 16.1.1988 petitioner was posted to 23 Infantry Division Ordnance Unit then commanded by Col. H.C. Chawla. Petitioner was appointed as Administrative Officer and also Officer-in-Charge Ammunition Technical Services. It is alleged that petitioner took charge of his duties from Maj.R.K. Gosain of the same unit. 3. It is alleged that in March, 1998 Sep Rajan Babu of the same unit was apprehended by Civil Police carrying service Hand Grenade. The matter was reported by Civil Police to the unit and in preliminary inquiry the petitioner found huge quantity of unaccounted Ammunition and explosives of dangerous nature, which petitioner was not informed by his predecessor Maj.RK Gosain. Petitioner verbally brought this to the notice of his Commanding Officer, Col. HC Chawla. The ammunition was seized and was taken in charge an...
Lt. Col. Praveen Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2011
A.K.Mathur, Chairperson 1. Petitioner by this petition has prayed to quash the order dated 19.4.2010 and also prayed that case of petitioner may be considered for promotion from Lt. Colonel to Colonel before the No.3 Selection Board. 2. Petitioner was commissioned in Army in Corps of Military Farms as a Major on 16.12.2004. The petitioner passed the promotional examination Part-D and was granted the substantive promotion to the rank of Lt. Colonel on 12.1.2007. He was informed by communication dated- 12.4.2007 that his date of revised seniority as 30.10.1994 has been refixed by the order dated 29.3.2007. On receipt of this letter of revised seniority, he sent a representation dated-17.4.2007 and submitted that the respondent has already given the promotion to the 10 RVC officers and one Military Farm officer from the post of Lt.Colonel to Colonel through the Selection Board and their seniority was also revised but for the promotion of Lt.Col to Colonel that was not the hindrance as per...
Ramesh Kumar Vs. Uoi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2011
1. Notwithstanding all and sundry grounds urged in the writ petition and conceding the same to be without any basis, learned counsel for the petitioner, when confronted with the testimony of HC Sri Ram PW-4, Ct.L.Mirandi PW-3, Ct.R.Kumar PW-5 and that of SI J.S.P.Mishra PW-2, concedes that there is sufficient evidence through the testimony of the said 4 witnesses to establish that the petitioner as also Naik Driver Sawant Singh had assaulted SI J.S.P.Mishra at around 21:00 hours on 9.12.1996. 2. We note that the petitioner and Sawant Singh were tried at a joint departmental enquiry. Article 1 of the charge was of both being under the influence of liquor. Article 2 of the charge was criminally assaulting ASI J.S.P.Mishra. Sawant Singh was charged for a 3rd misdemeanour i.e. of refusing to get himself medically examined. 3. The Inquiry Officer has absolved petitioner of the first charge by holding that there was evidence that the alcohol consumed by the petitioner was in less quantity an...
M/S Pure Drinks Ltd. Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2011
1. By an order dated 23.07.2001 passed by this court the Central Excise Gold Tribunal, now referred to as Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as „Tribunal) had directed a reference in respect of the following question of law: "Whether the Tribunal was justified in its view regarding applicability of Rule 57F(1)-(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944." 2. It appears that pursuant to the order of this court dated 23.07.2001 a statement of case dated 03.10.2006 was submitted by the Tribunal. Since this court was not satisfied with the facts articulated in the said statement of case; vide order dated 07.12.2007 it had directed the Tribunal to submit an appropriate statement of case. However, curiously, order dated 07.12.2007 was not complied with. Consequently, by yet another order dated 09.11.2009, this court directed the Tribunal to submit a statement of case within four weeks of receipt of its order. Accordingly, a fresh statement of case has ...
M/S Rakheja Enterprises Vs. Uoi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2011
1. The petition impugns the order dated 22nd August, 2006 of the Second Appellate Committee of the Ministry of Textiles, Government of India dismissing the Second Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 8th June, 2006 of the First Appellate Committee dismissing the First Appeal of the petitioner. The First Appeal had been preferred against the speaking order dated 25th August, 2005 of the respondent No.2 Apparel Export Promotion Council (AEPC) imposing forfeiture of `20,12,418/- on the petitioner owing to non fulfillment by the petitioner of terms and conditions of quota allotment. 2. The speaking order dated 25th August, 2005 of the respondent No.2 AEPC records that the petitioner failed to attend the personal hearing and / or to submit any reply to the show cause notice issued to it. The amount to be forfeited was computed after taking into account the proof of shipment / documents / overall utilization as available on record. 3. A perusal of the order dated 8th Ju...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »