Delhi Court February 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Yagini Kapoor Vs. Uoi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
Veena Birbal, J (Oral)C.M.3713/2012Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.Application stands disposed of.C.M.3714/2012This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. Application is not opposed. In view of the reasoning given in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of.Mat No.16/20121. Notice. Mr.Nitya Sharma accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.2.2. With the consent of the parties, appeal is taken up for final disposal.3. By way of this appeal, challenge has been made to the order dated 27th August, 2011 passed in HMA 421/11 and order dated 18th February, 2012 passed in review application.4. The appellant and respondent no.2 had filed a joint petition i.e., HMA 421/2011 under section 13(B)(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the learned ADJ, Delhi praying for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. A joint statement of parties was recorded on 1st ...
Food Inspector Vs. Vinod Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) 1. Ld. counsel for the State submits that vide judgment dated 27.07.2010 ld. ACMM held the respondent guilty for violation of sub clause (a)(j)(m) of Section 2 (ia) punishable under Section 16(1A) read with Section 7 of the PFA Act and vide order of sentence dated 31.07.2010, he was sentenced to RI for a period of 01 year and fine Rs.5,000/- for violation of sub-clause (a)(j)(m) of Section 2 (ia) punishable under Section 16(1A) read with Section 7 of the PFA Act.2. Being aggrieved the petitioner challenged the abovesaid order before the Sessions Court. Vide judgment dated 27.04.2011, ld ASJ has modified the order passed by ld. MM to the extent of sentencing him to pay fine of ` 50,000/- or in default SI of 03 months by keeping in view his responsibility towards his wife and three minor children and that he had no criminal antecedents.3. Ld. APP has pointed out that ld. Special Judge/NDPS has also not differed with the finding recorded by the ld. trial court, hold...
Charan Dass Kanwal and Others Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) 1. Notice issued.2. Ld. APP accepts notice on behalf of State / R1.3. Mr. Vinod Kumar, Adv. accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.2.4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR no.201 dated 09.08.2011, case under Section 448/467/471/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent no.2/ attorney at PS-Bindapur.5. Ld. Counsel further submits that respondent no.2 has compromised all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR against all the petitioners, therefore, he is no more interested to pursue the case further, therefore, the instant petition may be allowed.6. Respondent no. 2 is present in person with his Counsel Sh.Vinod Kumar, Adv. SI Jitender Kumar, IO of the case is also present in the court and has identified respondent no. 2 / attorney.7. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 on instruction has submitted that respondent no. 2 has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR, and he is no more interested t...
Parveen Arora Vs. Raj Karni Mehra and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
PRATIBHA RANI, J. (Oral)1. The appellant (plaintiff in CS(OS) No.105/1996) has impugned the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing suit seeking specific performance filed by the appellant on the strength of a receipt-cum-agreement dated 31.12.1992.2. In brief, the case of the appellant is that Late Sh.F.C.Mehra, husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondents No.2 to 4, agreed to sell property No.13-B, Rajendra Park, Pusa Road, New Delhi for a total consideration of `1.5 crores. While entering into the agreement, the appellant paid `2,51,000/- as advance and further agreed to pay `12,50,000/- before 20.01.1993. Balance sale consideration was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed.3. The further case of the appellant is that though he was required to pay only a sum of `12,50,000/- to the respondents by 20.01.1993, he paid a sum of `25,20,000/- on 15.01.1993 vide six bank drafts of `4,20,000/- each. While bank d...
Mukul Pal Taneja Vs. State Nct of Delhi Andanother
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) 1. Since, all the complaints pending before learned Trial Court had been dismissed on the same day by impugned order dated 03.05.2011, therefore, instant petitions are taken up for disposal by this common order.2. Vide instant petitions, the petitioner has challenged the aforementioned impugned order whereby the complaints of the petitioner were dismissed.3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents filed by them, I note the petitioner did not appear on 07.05.2010, 23.03.2011 and finally on 03.05.2011.4. Having no option, learned Trial Judge has dismissed the complaints on 03.05.2011, because of the fact that the petitioner did not appear on three dates mentioned above, may be due to the reason of communication gap with the lawyer. However, the total amount involved in these cases is Rs. 09.00 lacs.5. Therefore, Learned Trial Judge ought not to have dismissed the complaint and should have given one more opportunity to the petit...
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
A.K. SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE: 1. A notice to show cause dated 17th December, 2007 was issued by the DDA to the appellant herein as to why damages of `6,25,71,881/- be not imposed upon it for unauthorized use and occupation of commercial premises measuring 22 bighas and 10 biswas in Village - Barwala, Delhi for the period from 6th October, 2005 to 31st December, 2006. The appellant disputed the liability. However, order under Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “PP Act”) was passed by the Estate Officer imposing the aforesaid damages. The appellant filed appeal there against questioning the liability on various grounds. This appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 15th November, 2010. Thereafter, appellant preferred writ petition assailing the order of the appellate authority. In this writ petition mainly three grounds were raised by the appellant, namely :(i) There was an in...
M/S Kee Pharma Limited Vs. M/S Big M Healthcare and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)1. Plaintiff has filed present suit for permanent injunction, restraining infringement of trademark, rendition of accounts of profits/ damages delivery up acts of unfair competition etc. Summons were issued in the suit. While issuing notice in the application 12685/2010 defendants their assigns in business, distributors and dealers were restrained from manufacturing, selling, advertising, directly or indirectly pharmaceutical products under the impugned trade mark „DISER‟or any other mark, which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff‟s trade mark. As despite service none appeared on behalf of the defendants, nor any written statement was filed, the defendants were proceeded ex parte by order dated 05.01.2012. Plaintiff has filed affidavit by way of evidence of PW- 1, Sh.Sunil Seth, which has been exhibited as Ex.PW-1/A. PW-1 has deposed that the plaint was instituted by Ms. Uma Sachdev, the Board Resolution dated 06.08.2010 passed by plaintiff co...
Nehruji Central Hr. Sec School and Another Vs. Central Board of Second ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners praying inter alia for directions to the respondent/CBSE to consider the application submitted by them to the respondent/CBSE for affiliation, on the ground that petitioner No.1/school fulfills all the requirements of the respondent/CBSE for grant of affiliation.2. When the matter was taken up on the last date of hearing, i.e., on 27.02.2012, counsel for the petitioners had stated on instructions from his clients that the petitioners did not wish to press the presentpetition as regards their claim for affiliation of petitioner No.1/school with the respondent/CBSE, as they have already filed an application in this regard and shall pursue the same with the respondent/CBSE directly. However, the anxiety expressed by the petitioners is with regard to their plea that special permission may be granted by the respondent/CBSE to eleven students, who are required to appear in the class X examination commencing on 02.03.20...
Shahid Khalil Vs. Zahid Khalil and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
A.K. PATHAK, J.1. Plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration, partition, rendition of accounts and permanent injunction against the defendants.2. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 are step brothers of plaintiff. Disputes between the parties relate to property bearing no. C-47 and C-48, Jangpura (B), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “suit property”). As per the registered sale deed dated 3rd March, 1964, the suit property stands in the name of Shahid Khalil and Zahid Khalil. Shahid Khalil and Zahid Khalil are the joint owners of the suit property by virtue of the aforementioned sale deed. Defendant no. 3 is a tenant in the suit property.3. Case of the plaintiff, as set out in the plaint, is that he along with defendant no. 1 is joint owner of the suit property. Defendant no. 2, in order to grab the suit property, started asserting that he was also known as Shahid Khalil and that the suit property is jointly owned by him and his brother, defendant no. 1. Father of the plaintiff,...
Smt Raj Rani Arora Vs. Smt Kailash Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)1. Impugned judgment is dated 08.11.2011; the eviction petition filed by the landlord under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short ‘DRCA’) had been decreed; this judgment was modified on 14.12.2011; modification was to the effect that in a petition under Section 14-D of the DRCA no period of six months is required to be awaited for the purpose of execution. Vide earlier order dated 08.11.2011, period of six months was to be awaited by the landlord before he could get the decree executed.2. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlady-Kailash Sharma on the ground of Section 14(D) of the DRCA; she is a widow. There is no dispute to this factual position. She is the owner and landlady of the property bearing No. XV-372, Gali Chandi Wli, Paharganj, New Delhi-110055 which had been let out to the tenant in the year 1982 on a oral agreement. Premises comprise of two rooms with cement sheets, latrine, bath roo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »