Delhi Court September 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.
Anjan Kumar Singhi and anr. Vs. Ranjan Kumar Singhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2011
1. This litigation commenced in this Court pursuant to the filing of CS(OS) No.2615/2008 by Shri Ranjan Kumar Singhi and his wife, Smt. Taruna Singhi, who we shall hereinafter refer to as the Plaintiffs. The Prayers in the Plaint, inter alia, are for the execution of a Trust allegedly created by the Will of Shri Narendra Singh Singhi, father/father-in-law of the Plaintiffs, Late husband of Smt. Angoori Singhi, Defendant No.1, who is the mother/mother-in-law of the other parties. Shri Anjan Singhi, Defendant No.2 and his wife Smt. Usha Singhi, Defendant No.3 had filed IA No.3213/2009 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC for short) praying for the dismissal of the Suit. Since this application has been dismissed, FAO(OS) No.299/2010 has been preferred by Defendant Nos.2 and 3. The Plaintiffs filed IA No.3240/2009 under Section 151 of the CPC seeking an ad interim order against the mother/Defendant No.1, inter alia, for performance of her obligations as the sol...
Ge Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd Vs. RahisuddIn Khan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2011
1. Vide the instant petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 30.03.2010, whereby, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi returned the complaint case under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as „NI Act), inter-alia holding that the complaint is barred by jurisdiction. 2. In the present case as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, the summons have not been issued by learned MM as the complaint filed by the petitioner has been returned on the ground of jurisdiction, therefore, there is not necessity to issue notice to the respondent in the instant petition also. This position has been fortified by the judgment of the constitution bench in the case of Chander Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430 wherein the Supreme Court has held that the entire scheme of Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure shows that an accused person does not come into the picture at all till the proc...
M/S Jewellers Om Prakash and anr. Vs. the Chief Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2011
1. Petitioner No. 1, M/s Jewellers Om Prakash is a partnership firm, of which the petitioner No. 2 Mr. Om Prakash Bhola is a partner. By this writ petition, they have impugned orders dated 6th May, 2009 and 24th August, 2009, passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi VIII, respondent No. 1 herein, rejecting their request for waiver of interest under Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short). They have also prayed for return of jewellery which was valued at Rs. 4,49,255/- at the time of seizure on 28th October, 1992. As far as second prayer is concerned, the respondents along with the counter affidavit have filed the order dated 30th September, 2010, passed by respondent No. 1, directing the Additional CIT, Range-20 to take steps for release of jewellery seized on 28/29th October, 1992, valued at Rs.4,49,255/-. To this extent, the writ petition is rendered infructuous. Keeping in view the delay and laches and to ensure immediate and timely return of jewell...
Prem Kumar and ors. Vs. Lt. Governor, Nct of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2011
1. W.P.(C) No.2875/2003 was filed impugning the order dated 7 th April, 2003 of the respondent DDA of demolition and sealing of the properties of the 12 petitioners in Village-Mahipalpur, Delhi. The respondent DDA had exercised such jurisdiction under Section 30(1) and Section 31A of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 claiming the properties of the petitioners to be falling in Development Area 176 of DDA. It was however the claim of the petitioners that their properties fall on Khasra Nos.723/2, 733/2 and 734/2 in Village-Mahipalpur and Village-Mahipalpur does not fall in Development Area 176 and thus respondent DDA had no jurisdiction to issue such orders. 2. The Commissioner (Land Management), DDA has in the impugned order held that Development Area has no relation with the revenue estate and since the properties of the petitioners fell in Development Area 176, DDA was empowered to exercise powers with respect thereto. It was further held that a part of Village-Mahipalpur fell in the sa...
Simplex Engineering and Foundry and ors. Vs. Ministry of Railways and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2011
1. In these Appeals, a neat question of law has been raised which is of grave general importance. Some learned Single Judges have adopted the practice, while dealing with Objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act for short), to consider all the grounds at the threshold, but restrict issuance of notice in respect of only some of them. While doing so, our learned Brothers have diligently disposed of some of the Objections by articulating reasons which have prompted the Court to reject them at the very threshold. The reason for adopting this practice is manifestly clear. One of the avowed objectives of the A&C Act is to expedite the culmination of arbitral proceedings. Unfortunately, the provisions of the A&C Act postulate, under Section 36, that where the time for making an application to set aside the arbitral award under Section 34 has expired, or such application having been made, has been refused, the award shall be enforced unde...
Nathu Ram Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2011
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Nathu Ram, submits that the petitioner was not well and was referred to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital by the DTC Medical Board vide prescription slip dated 20th March, 2008. It is submitted that the departmental authorities and the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (the tribunal, for short) have ignored the medical prescriptions and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the tribunal dated 15th April, 2011 dismissing O.A. No. 3483/2010 and the order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority and upheld by the appellate authority deserve to be set aside. 2. We have examined the said contention as well as the prescription slips, which have been placed on record. The petitioner was a driver with the respondent-Delhi Transport Corporation. He had remained absent from 2nd January, 2008 to 30th June, 2009 without prior intimation and permission. The total period of absence is 509 days. He had initially submitted a leave application wi...
Raju Bhojwani Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-xi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2011
1. The petitioner-Raju Bhojwani is the sole proprietor of Reshmica Exports. For the assessment year 2002-03, the petitioner filed his return on 4th October, 2002 declaring total taxable income of Rs. 6,76,660/- after claiming deduction of Rs.6,34,503/- under Section 80 HHC of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short). 2. Proceedings under Section 147 of the Act were initiated by issue of notice dated 5th July, 2004 as it was noticed that the petitioner had claimed excessive deduction under Section 80 HHC. The petitioner in fact had business loss in exports of Rs.7,16,189/- but this was ignored for computation of deduction under Section 80 HHC. 3. By this time, the Supreme Court had decided IPCA Laboratory Limited versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, [2004] 266 ITR 521 (SC) holding, inter alia, that on a plain reading of Section 80 HHC it is clear that in arriving at the profits earned from exports, profits and losses of both manufactured goods and trading goods have to be taken in...
Ashraf @ Danny Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2011
1. Ashraf @ Danny, the appellant herein on being convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 452 and 392 IPC vide impugned judgment dated 29.10.2007 and the consequent order on sentence dated 02.11.2007 has preferred this appeal. 2. Briefly stated, allegations against the appellant are that he along with his co-accused trespassed into the house of Afsana Praveen, gagged her mouth and one of the co-accused took out a dagger and abused and criminally intimidated the complainant Afsana Praveen and thereafter they robbed her of `1,50,000/- in cash besides gold ornaments. 3. Appellant along with other co-accused was charged for the offence punishable under Section 452, 392, 397 read with Section 120 B IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant, prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses, including the complainant. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he denied th...
Ruchi Singhal Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2011
1. Ms. Ruchi Singhal has filed the present intra-Court appeal assailing the decision dated 18th February, 2011 dismissing her Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8485/2008. Mother of the appellant, late Arun Singhal, applied for an MIG flat and was registered under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979. She deposited Rs.4,500/- vide receipt dated 17th September, 1979. She expired on 31st January, 1992. The appellant, who was the writ petitioner, is the daughter of late Arun Singhal. 2. In the draw of lots held on 15th July, 1998, late Arun Singhal was allotted an MIG flat. The appellant came to know about the said allotment and vide letter dated 31st October, 1998 informed the respondent-DDA about demise of Arun Singhal and requested the respondent to send the demand-cum-allotment letter in her name as she is one of the legal heirs. The appellant requested the respondent to inform her about the procedure and formalities for transfer of the registration. In spite of the said letter, the respo...
Abdul Shahzad Vs. the State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-2011
1. Abdul Shahzad, the appellant herein, on being convicted for the offence punishable under Section 394 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for the period of 07 years as also to pay fine of `5,000/-, in default to undergo SI for the period of 06 months, has preferred this appeal. 2. Briefly stated, allegations against the appellant are that he, in furtherance of his common intention with his co-accused Mohd. Sueb and others robbed the complainant Taufiq Mohd of `10,000/- on the point of knife used by the accused Mohd. Sueb. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of appellant and his co- accused, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses, including the complainant. Statements of the appellant and his co- accused were recorded. Both of them denied the prosecution version and pleaded innocence. No witness in defence was preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, at the outset submitted that the appellant admits his guilt on merits and does n...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »