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.
Sita Ram and Others Vs. Mcd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
ORDER21.02.2012 CM No.2748/2012 (delay) 1. For the reasons stated in this application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of.LPA No.112/2012 2. Admit.3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties we have heard the matter finally at this stage. The Appellants are working as ECG Technicians in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). Pay scale attached to this post, before implementation of 5th Pay Commission, was Rs.4000-6000. Same pay scale was given to ECG Technician working in Delhi Administration (now Govt. of NCT of Delhi). However, when the recommendations of 5th Pay Commission were accepted and implemented in the MCD, the revised pay scale given to the Appellants was Rs.4000-6000 whereas for the employees working in the Govt. of NCT of Delhi the pay scale accorded was Rs.4500-7000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The Appellants demanded the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 at par with their counterparts working in Govt. of NCT of Delhi and raised industrial dispute...
Pradeep Kumar and Another Vs. Uoi and Other.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral) 1. Vide order dated 18.10.2011, respondent No.3/MCD was directed to file a fresh status report clearly stating inter alia as to whether any other encroachments exist on public land, subject matter of the present writ petition, apart from the portion of the land, subject matter of WP(C)No.3412/2010, in which a stay is operating in favour of the petitioner therein. It was further directed that in case any malba was found to be lying on public land, respondent No.3/MCD would ensure its removal before the next date of hearing. 2. A status report has been filed by respondent No.3/MCD on 20.1.2012, wherein it is stated that encroachment removal action was undertaken on 24.2.2010 and 25.2.2010, as per the demarcation made by the revenue authorities. However, further encroachment removal action could not be undertaken on the aforesaid dates due to resistance faced from the local residents. In April, 2010, encroachment removal action was again undertaken by the MCD in resp...
Ashiem Berry and Others Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)1. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR no. 491 dated 20.07.2004 case under Section 498A/406/506/323/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent no. 2 at Police Station - Ashok Vihar.2. It is further submitted that a settlement arrived between the parties. Pursuance to the said settlement, marriage between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 has been dissolved by mutual consent vide decree of divorce dated 13.04.2011. A joint statement of petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 was recorded, whereby petitioner no. 1 agreed to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as full and final settlement.3. It is further submitted that as per the settlement dated, 13.04.2011, respondent no. 2 has already received an amount of Rs.3 Lacs. It is pertinent to note that a DD of Rs.1.5 Lacs is placed in the judicial file of the trial court. It is further submitted that if the said amount is released in favour of respon...
Gulshan Raheja Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) Crl.M.A.No.2225/2012(exemption)Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Criminal M.A. stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 650/20121. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of FIR no.44 dated 06.02.2004 whereby case under Section 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners on the complaint of the respondent no. 2 at PS-Anand Vihar.2. It is further submitted that vide settlement dated 29.09.2011, respondent no. 2 has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR against the petitioners, therefore, she is no more interested to pursue the case further.3. Respondent no. 2 is personally present in the court and in support of her identity she has produced her I-Card bearing no. TLE1706217 issued by Election Commission of India . (Original seen and returned to the respondent no.2).4. Respondent no. 2 has stated that vide settlement dated 29.09.2011 all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR has been settled with the petition...
Cit Vs. Millenium Automations and Systems Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
SANJIV KHANNA,J:(ORAL)1. The present appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟, for short) impugns the order dated 16.2.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („Tribunal‟, for short). By the impugned order, the Tribunal has rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs.1,63,37,365/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 41(1) of the Act.2. Ld. counsel for the Revenue has filed before us copies of the order sheets dated 23.10.2008 and 10.12.2008. It is submitted that the Assessing Officer may have wrongly invoked the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act as the present case is of bogus purchases. Ld. counsel for the Revenue has referred to the address of Makkar Traders, namely, 2712, 2nd Floor, Gali Pattewali, Naya Bazar, Delhi-6 and submits that computer traders did not operate from the said area. He further submits that the aut...
Bilkish Vs. Khushnuma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral)1. Order impugned before this Court is the order dated 02.07.2011 vide which the eviction petition filed by the landlady under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) seeking eviction of the tenant from the premises i.e. 60/218, ground floor, Sunlight Colony, Old Seemapuri, Delhi had been decreed in favour of the landlady; the application seeking leave to defend had been dismissed.2. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlady under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRCA; the aforenoted premises (comprising of one room and a verandah on the ground floor) had been tenanted out to the tenant in January, 1998; the family of the petitioner comprised of herself, her husband, two daughters and one son i.e. 5 family members who were presently living in the one pucca room/structure on the first floor and tin shed on the second floor; site plan depicting the suit premises has also been filed along with the eviction petition. Furth...
Rampadarath Gami and Another Vs. State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
S.RAVINDRA BHAT,J.(OPEN COURT)1. The appellants, Ram Padarth Gami (“Gami”) and his sons, Manoj and Ashok impugn a judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 29.09.2011 in SC No.3/2010. The impugned judgment convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC and also sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life together with other sentences. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The prosecution had alleged that Dharmender (the complainant) and his friend, Manish Kumar, were drinking juice, in Gami’s shop on 13-10-2009, at 09:00 PM, when they saw the shutters of Ashok’s adjoining cycle repair shop suddenly being opened. Both saw Gami, Manoj and Ashok strangulating Dinesh, his (the complainant’s) brother, with a wire, inside the shop. Dharmender recognized the victim, Dinesh and tried to intervene, by rushing into the shop and shouting out aloud for help. The accused fled the spot. Dharmender went ...
Abid Ahmed and Others Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) Crl.M.A.No.2181/2012 (exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.CRL.M.C. No.629/2012 1. Notice issued.2. Ms.Rajdipa Behura, learned APP on behalf of respondent No.1/State and Mr.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel on behalf of respondent No.2 accepts notice.3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that vide FIR No.129/2008 dated 31.05.2008 a case under Sections 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2 at police station Jamia Nagar, New Delhi.4. It is further submitted that vide compromise deed dated 01.10.2011, respondent No.2 has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR against the petitioners, therefore, she is not interested in pursuing this case against them. She also has no objection, if the aforementioned FIR is quashed.5. Respondent No.2 present in person with her counsel Mr.Naveen Kumar, who duly identifies her.6. On instructions, learn...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Motor and General Finance Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
SANJIV KHANNA,J:(ORAL)Vide order dated 11.9.2009, the following substantial questions of law were framed :“(a) Whether the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the Assessee is neither a financial company nor a credit institution in terms of Section 2(5B) of the Interest Tax Act, 1974 and as such was not a taxable entity for the purpose of Interest Tax Act, 1974?(b) Whether the ITAT was correct in law in holding that for deciding principal business of a taxable entity under the Interest Tax Act, 1974 only receipt from business is the criteria and the other parameters as the turnover, capital employment, head-count of persons employed in each line of business activity etc. are not relevant?(c) Whether the order of ITAT is perverse as it has ignored several factual aspects of the decisions relied upon by the CIT(A) in its order?”2. These questions of law were disposed of by judgment dated 30.10.2009. For the sake of convenience paragraph 17 of the said judgment is reproduce...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Others Vs. Valsama Joseph Rajan and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J: 1. These are two Cross-Appeals arising out of a judgment dated 21.08.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby a claim petition under Section 166 filed by the First Respondent in MAC APP No.845/2010 was allowed and she was awarded a compensation of Rs.12,51,357/- for having suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 20.01.2004. 2. MAC APP No.845/2010 has been preferred by the Appellant United India Insurance Co. Ltd. for reduction of compensation on the ground that the compensation awarded is exorbitant and excessive. The Cross-Objections registered as MAC APP. No.132/2012 are preferred by the First Respondent where the First Respondent says that the compensation awarded is not just and proper as she has not been compensated for the loss of amenities in life and for mental pain and suffering for not bearing a child in future. 3. For the sake of convenience, the Appellant United India Insurance Co. Ltd. shall be referred to as the “i...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »