Delhi Court February 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.
Hav.Skt. Sunil Kumar J Vs. Hav. Nand Lal and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. The Appellant impugns the judgment dated 26.11.2007 passed by the Claims Tribunal whereby a compensation of `9,01,223/- was awarded in favour of the Appellant for having suffered injuries resulting into a permanent disability to the extent of 55%.2. During the pendency of the Appeal, an application for additional evidence has been filed stating that the Appellant was not given reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence of expenditure in respect of his future treatment.3. I have perused the record. By an order dated 29.07.2005 the case was listed for the Appellant’s evidence on 19.11.2005. On 19.11.2005 the learned Presiding Officer was on leave. The Reader of the Court instead of listing the matter for evidence of the Petitioner or for proper orders, listed it for Respondent’s evidence.4. The evidence of the Appellant was never closed, thus it is apparent that the Appellant was not granted adequate opportunity to adduce his evidence.5. In para 14 of...
New India Assurance Co Ltd. Vs. Himdari Dutta and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) C.M.No.1534/2011 The award amount has already been deposited and 50% of the amount has already been disbursed in terms of the order of Tribunal. The interim order dated 04.03.2011 is made absolute. The application stands disposed of.C.M.No.21048/2011(cross objections) and 21049/2011 (Delay) There is a delay of 62 days in filing the cross objections. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 62 days in filing the cross objection is condoned. Both the applications are allowed. Cross-Objections has been registered as MAC APPL.212/2012.MAC APPL.69/2011 1. The Appellant impugns a judgment dated 30.11.2011 whereby a compensation of Rs.18,80,000/- was awarded to the Respondent No.1 to 3 for the death of Dr.Nabonita Dutta in an accident which took place on 29.12.2004.2. One of the grounds urged on behalf of the Appellant/Insurance Company is that due opportunity to prove its defence was not granted to the Appellant.3. A perusal of the Tria...
Ms. Manisha Mehra (Minor) and Another Vs. Sh. Munish Mehra and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)I.A. 3482/2012 and I.A. 3484/20121. Plaintiffs have filed the present suit under Section 18(2) (a) (b) (e) (g) read with Section 20 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act for maintenance.2. Plaintiff no.1 is the minor daughter of plaintiff no.2. Defendant is the father of plaintiff no.1 and husband of plaintiff no.2. Marriage between plaintiff no.2 and defendant was solemnized on 2.2.1998. Plaintiff no.1 was born out of the wedlock of plaintiff no.2 and defendant on 29.10.1998. On account of marital discord between plaintiff no.2 and defendant, parties have been residing separately. Plaintiff no.1 is residing with plaintiff no.2. During the pendency of the matter Rs.15,000/- was fixed as interim maintenance for the plaintiffs, which the defendant has been paying to the plaintiffs.3. Although the suit has been filed by the plaintiff no.1 minor through her natural guardian, I find that no application was filed for appointing mother, plaintiff no.2 herein as a guardia...
Union of India Vs. Aircel Limited and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
A.K. SIKRI, ACJ(ORAL) Caveat No.190/2012 in WP(C) 1077/2012Caveat No. 191/2012 in WP(C) 1085/2012Caveat No. 192/2012 in WP(C) 1086/2012Since the respondents/caveators have entered appearance, Caveats stand discharged.C.M. No. 2367/2012 in WP(C) 1077/2012C.M. No. 2375/2012 in WP(C) 1085/2012C.M. No. 2377/2012 in WP(C) 1086/2012 (all for exemption)Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.CMs stand disposed off.WP(C) Nos.1077/2012, 1085/2012 and 1086/2012 1. In these three writ petitions, the challenge is to the common orders dated 24.12.2011, 20.1.2012 and 17.2.2012 of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in the proceedings, filed by respondent in each of these writ petitions, before the Tribunal. While orders dated 24.12.2011 and 17.2.2012 concern interim relief/stay granted by the Tribunal, vide order dated 20.1.2012, the Tribunal has decided the question pertaining to its jurisdiction to deal with the petitio...
Ram Dev Shukla Vs. Dda
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for restoration of the allotment of stall/unit No.81 located at Chhoti Sabzi Mandi, Tilak Marg, New Delhi, by setting aside the cancellation letter dated 10.10.2005.2. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner is a hawker, who used to hawk in Nehru Place since the year 1980. On 07.04.1998, the petitioner was given an alternative hawking site at Tilak Marg, in lieu of his hawking site at Nehru Place on the basis of a draw of lots. On 30.11.1998, the respondent/DDA demanded a sum of `1,71,405/- from the petitioner for handing over possession of the aforesaid site. It is averred by the petitioner that in June 2004, an initial amount of `43,000/- was deposited by him. On 06.05.2004, the respondent/DDA called upon the petitioner to pay an additional sum of `7,754/- as the balance amount of 25% of the initial amount paid by him. The petitioner paid the said amount in May 2004. On 16.06.200...
Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co Ltd. Vs. Krishna Wanti (Since Decd) ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
KAUR, J. (Oral)1. This order shall dispose of two petitions which have been filed by the tenant-M/s. Modi Spinning and weaving Mills Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as „the tenant‟) against the impugned order of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) dated 10.08.2011. Two petitions have been filed as they relate to two different portions of the suit premises; the bungalow is property bearing No. G-11, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. These proceedings have in fact arisen from the eviction petitions E13/1997 and E 14/1997; E 14/1997 relates to the tenanted portion comprising 2-1/2 storeyed bungalow consisting of one drawing room, one dining room, one bed room, one kitchen with pantry, store and bathroom on the ground floor, three bed rooms with attached baths and verandah as also open terrace on the first floor and one bed room with attached bathroom and open terrace on the second floor along with the open front lawn. Eviction Petition No. E-13/1997 relates to the tenanted po...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M/S Samora Hotels P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. 1. The substantial question of law which we have to answer in this appeal is:- “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in concluding that no penalty was leviable on the assessee under the provisions of section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. This appeal arises out of the order dated 29.07.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘E’, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ ) in ITA No.1066/Del/2005 relating to the assessment year 2001-02. 3. In the course of assessment proceedings for the relevant assessment year ( 2001-02), the Assessing Officer noticed that a sum of ` 66.50 lakhs was shown to have been received by the assessee from three persons (Mr Rajinder Diwan, Mr Puneet Diwan and Mrs Urmil Diwan - promoter directors) by way of unsecured loans. What is significant is that, out of the said amount of ` 66.50 lakhs, a sum o...
NasiruddIn Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)1. Vide order dated 24.01.2012, this Court has passed the following order.1. Learned counsels for parties jointly stated that vide FIR No.337/2005 dated 25.08.2005 a case under Section 498A/406 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against petitioner at police station Sarai Rohilla, Delhi on the complaint of respondent No.2.2. They further informed this Court petitioner and respondent No.2 have decided to live together as husband and wife, therefore, respondent No.2 is not interested in further pursuing her case against petitioner and if the aforementioned FIR is quashed, she has no objection.3. This Court specifically inquired from the petitioner and respondent No.2 to this effect. Initially, respondent No.2 stated that no such arrangement has been made to live together. However, thereafter, she stated that they have decided to live together.4. Petitioner No.2 has also been inquired about the same arrangement. He has also given more or less similar answer.5. The...
Nm Goel Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
BADAR DURREZ AHMED (ORAL) 1. The petitioner made the following claims before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in the Original Application No.1058/2010:-(i) payment of the balance dues of the Applicant after calculating his pay correctly as per their own guidelines;(ii) payment of bonus for the year 2008-09 based upon the corrected salary;(iii) terminal passage for the family of the Applicant to travel to India;(iv) payment of the amount of leave encashment as per the rules; and(v) re-calculation of the gratuity on the basis of the re-fixation of the pay and including the Cost of Living Allowance (COLA).2. The petitioner’s said OA was dismissed by the Tribunal by virtue of the impugned order dated 29.11.2010. The petitioner retired from the High Commission of India in UK from the post of Senior Administrative Officer on 31.03.2009 and it is in that backdrop that he has claimed the above-mentioned reliefs.3. Before us, the learned counsel for the peti...
J.K. Soni Vs. State Govt. of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
1. By the present petition, the Petitioner lays a challenge to the judgment dated 6th April, 2009 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 44/2008 filed against the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicting and sentencing the Appellant for offence under Section 24 of the University Grants Commission Act (in short ‘UGC Act’) and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner is the Secretary of “Commercial University Limited”, a public limited company incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office for more than 50 years and conducting various commercial courses like typing, short-hand etc. and awarding certificates. Since the name of the company itself include University, in terms of Section 147 of the Companies Act, 1956, the company is duty bound to paint and affix the its name at its office and any contravention ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »