Delhi Court January 2012 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.
State Vs. Manna @ Maina and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2012
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 526/2011 % Judgment delivered on: 17th January, 2012 STATE ..... Petitioner Through : Ms. Rajdipa, APP versus MANNA @ MAINA and ANR ..... Respondent Through : None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) Crl. M. A. 17452/2011 (Delay) For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the petition is condoned. The application is disposed of. CRL.L.P. 526/2011.1. By the instant petition, the State has assailed the impugned judgment dated 04.07.2011 whereby the learned Special Judge, NDPS has acquitted both the accused/respondents..2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 07.08.2010, SI Ajay Karan Sharma of PS Mangol Puri was on routine patrolling duty along with other CRL.L.P. 526/2011 Page 1 of 6 police staff. At about 10:00 pm, they reached near L-Block, Water Tank, Mangol Puri and saw one Maruti Car bearing No. DL-3C-AW-5381 coming from R-Block, Mangol Puri side. Two persons i.e. the respo...
Pandit Pappu Dubey Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl. Rev.P. No. 18/2012 and Crl.M.A. 328/2012 (stay) % Reserved on: 11th January, 2012 Decided on: 17th January, 2012 PANDIT PAPPU DUBEY ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Tarun, Adv. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for State with SI Umesh Rana. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Crl.M.A.328/2011 Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. Crl. Rev.P. No. 18/2012 and Crl.M.A. 328/2012 (stay).1. By this petition the Petitioner challenges the order dated 22 nd November, 2011 directing framing of charge against the Petitioner for offences punishable under Section 366 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC..2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner is the pujari, who got the marriage performed. Petitioner was not named by the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is only Crl.Rev.P. 18/2012 Page 1 of 8 when she appeared in the witness box she named the Petitioner and ...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Jagbir Singh Sharma and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI O.M.P. No.399/2006 Reserved on: December 7, 2011 Decision on: January 17, 2012 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Mini Pushkarna with Ms. Prerna Verma, Advocates. versus JAGBIR SINGH SHARMA AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Anil Sapra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikas Sharma, Mr. Nishant Nandan and Ms.Rupali Kapoor, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT 17.01.2012.1. The challenge by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('MCD') in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act') is to the Award dated 17th May, 2006 passed by the Sole Arbitrator in the dispute between MCD and Respondent No.1, Jagbir Singh Sharma, who was awarded the work of widening of the carriageway of 60 RPW roads in Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II..2. Respondent No.1 was awarded the above work by Work Order dated 13th February, 2002 for an amount of Rs.31,95,382/-. The period of completion was six mont...
Prasar Bharati Vs. B4u Multimedia International Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI O.M.P. No.199/2009 Reserved on: January 10, 2012 Decision on: January 17, 2012 PRASAR BHARATI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajeev Sharma with Mr. Sahil Bhalaik and Mr. Uddyan Mukherjee, Advocates. versus B4U MULTIMEDIA INTERNATIONAL LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sudhanshu Chaudhary, Mr. Ashutosh Dubey and Mr. Parag, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT 17.01.2012.1. Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) challenges the Award dated 17th December, 2008 passed by the Sole Arbitrator in the dispute between it and THE Respondent, B4U Multimedia International Ltd., arising out of an Agreement dated 15th November, 2000 between the parties. Background facts.2. The Petitioner states that in the year 2000 negotiations took place between the parties during which the Respondent offered to the Petitioner films in which it owned right for telecast on its Doordarshan Worldwide ('DD Worldwide...
National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Reshmi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 10th January, 2012 Pronounced on:17th January, 2012 + MAC.APP. 460/2010 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD..... Appellant Through: Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha, Advocate. versus RESHMI and ORS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ashok Popli, Adv. for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J..1. The Appellant National Insurance Company Limited impugns the judgment dated 03.04.2010 whereby a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (the Act) preferred by the First Respondent (Ms. Reshmi), for having suffered injuries in an accident which took place on 17.07.2004, was allowed and she was granted a compensation of ` 87,178/-..2. The defence raised by the Appellant National Insurance Company is that the policy had been cancelled due to which it was not liable to indemnify the insured, was rejected by the Tribunal relying on a judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in United India Insurance Company Limit...
Banarassi Prasad Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Urba ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2012
ORAL: M.L. Chauhan: 1. The applicant has filed this OA against the impugned orders dated 15.3.2010 (Annexure A-1) and dated 8.10.2010 (Annexure A-2) whereby on departmental proceedings the penalty of censure was imposed upon him and also the period of absence was treated as dies-non. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the major penalty proceeding was initiated against the applicant under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1964 (for short ‘Rules 1964’) by issuing a charge sheet dated 8.10.2002. Inquiry was held and the charges were partly proved in the inquiry proceedings. Not agreeing with the findings given by the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority recorded ‘note of disagreement’ and ultimately after considering the reply of the applicant, imposed the penalty of censure and declared the absent period from 19.12.2001 to 24.6.2002 as dies-non without forfeiting past service. The appeal filed by the applicant was also rejected by the appellate authori...
S.L. Gupta Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Government of India, M ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2012
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): 1. Shri S. L. Gupta, retired SP of CBI, the applicant herein, is aggrieved by the Memorandum dated 01.08.2011 (Annexure-A1) by which he was intimated that he would not be granted the benefit of representation against below benchmark grading as the OM dated 13.04.2010 issued by DOPandT would not be retrospectively applicable since the review DPC was held on 04.03.2009 prior to the issue of the said OM. He is also aggrieved of the Memorandum dated 7.09.2011 (Anneuxre-A2) issued by the second respondent conveying him that his request made in the representation against the below benchmark grading of ACR was not acceded to. He is also challenging the vires of the DOPandT OM dated 13.04.2010 only in respect of its applicability for ‘future DPCs’ where the recommendations would be implemented prospectively. Challenging the above OMs and Memoranda dated 01.08.2011 and 07.09.2011, the applicant is before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Admi...
M/S. Ashiana Cargo Services Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import and Ge ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2012
Per Archna Wadhwa (for the Bench), J. 1. Vide impugned order the Commissioner has suspended the appellants licence of CHA, issued to them in the year 1996-97 in terms of Custom House Agent Licence Regulation 1984. 2. As per facts on record, the appellant procured G Card in the name of Shri Naveen Mishra and Shri Jawed Kamal. In the case of inquiry being conducted in respect of fraudulent export of prohibited narcotics drugs by M/s. V.K. International, it came to fact that the said two G card holders were infact employees of M/s. V.K. International Pvt. Ltd., a freight forwarding company. Further investigations were conducted and statement of appellants representative were recorded. It stands established that Shri Naveen Mishra and Shri Jawed Kamal were not the employees of the proprietor and G card was procured by the appellant in their name by mis-representing as his own employees. He also received a consideratio...
Dipankar Sen Vs. Anita Phalpher
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2012
$~R-44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : January 12, 2012 Judgment Pronounced on : January 16, 2012 + RFA(OS) No.37/2002 DIPANKAR SEN ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Pushkar Sood and Mr.Subhash, Advocates versus ANITA PHALPHER ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Sanjeev Anand with Mr.Nimit Mathur and Mr.Murari Kumar, Advocates CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HONBLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J..1. In the judgment reported as JT 1993 (6) SC 331 S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs and Ors., quoting Chief Justice Edward Coke of England: fraud-avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal, the Supreme Court highlighted that Courts of Law are meant for imparting justice between the parties and one who comes to the Court must come with clean hands. The Court noted with RFA(OS) 37/2002 Page 1 of 13 distress that instances of process of the Court being abused were occurri...
Ajay Paliwal and ors Vs. Sanjay Paliwal and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2012
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CO.A(SB) 17/2007 AJAY PALIWAL and ORS. ..... Appellants Through Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Advocate with Mr. Saurabh Kalia, Advocate. versus SANJAY PALIWAL and ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Advocate for respondents. Mr. Pankaj Batra, Advocate for Registrar of Companies and Regional Director. WITH + CO.A(SB) 18/2007 M/S PALIWAL HOTELS PVT. LTD and ORS. ..... Appellants Through Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Advocate with Mr. Saurabh Kalia, Advocate. versus SANJAY PALIWAL ..... Respondent Through Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Advocate for respondent. Mr. Pankaj Batra, Advocate for Registrar of Companies and Regional Director. Co.As.(SB) 17-18 of 2007 Page 1 of 30 Reserved on : 9th January, 2012 % Date of Decision: 16th January, 2012 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J :.1. Present two appeals have been filed under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'Act') against the impugned order/judgment dated 31st May, 2007...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »