Delhi Court March 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.
Cce, Delhi Vs. Ganpati Rolling P. Ltd and Another
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Shri Bharat Bhushan, ld. AR appearing for the Revenue and Shri K.K.Anand, ld. Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. M/s Ganpati Rolling P.Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of copper wire rods falling under Chapter 7408 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Shri Manoj Kumar Jain is Director of the said manufacturing unit. 3. The premises of M/s Ganpati Rolling P.Ltd. were put to search by the officers of DGCEI on 22.02.04. On verification of the stock, it was found that the raw materials and the finished goods were in excess of the quantity recorded in the statutory records. The same were accordingly put under seizure by way of a Panchnama dtd. 22.02.04.4. Statement of Shri Lalji Dubey, Manager was recorded on the same date wherein he deposed that the records maintained by them in the shape of raw materials st...
Delhi Mahila Samaj Trust (Regd) and Another Vs. Rumma S. Sunder and An ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. 1. The facts of the case are that there was a dispute with regard to management and functioning of the appellant trust which led to the filing of the suit being CS (OS) No.697/2006 under Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for declaration, permanent injunction and rendition of accounts. In the said suit, the Trust was made plaintiff No.1 and the suit had been filed on its behalf through Ms. Devyani Sircar, its Managing Trustee. The plaintiff No.2 was another trustee Smt. Zakia Sultana who has since died, Mrs. Renu Talwani was the plaintiff No.3 There were two defendants, namely, Smt. Rumma S. Sunder, who was the Chairperson of the Trust and as per the averments made in the plaint of the suit, she was removed from the said position on account of purported acts of mismanagement of the Trust and embezzlement of Trust money. The other defendant was ING Vysya Bank Ltd., where account of the Trust was maintained. 2. Vide order dated 23.07.2008, the interim applic...
Ram Gopal Vs. Yogeshwar Chand and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL) 1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for specific performance and permanent injunction. Counsel for the plaintiff was requested to address arguments on the question of limitation, as it appears that the present suit has been filed beyond the period of limitation. 2. As per the plaint, plaintiff is running a shop under the name and style of M/s.R.G.S. Collection on the ground floor in the property in question bearing No.42-43 U.B. Block, Jawahar Nagar Delhi. The defendants who have been arrayed as parties to the present suit are the owner of the suit property and legal heirs of late Sh.Prem Chand Sharma, who expired on 27.09.2011. It is stated in the plaint that during his life time, late Sh.Prem Chand Sharma entered into an oral agreement to Sell with the plaintiff, which fact was within the knowledge of the defendants. The plaintiff is in occupation of the suit premises since the year 1992 onwards. In paragraph 3 of the plaint it has been averred that the ora...
M/S. Sps International Ltd. Vs. Directorate of Education and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
A.K.Sikri, Acting Chief Justice. 1.The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the orders dated 17.1.2012 of the respondent No.2 whereby the work awarded to the petitioner earlier for printing, supply and scanning of OMR sheets for CCEP-II Examination, 2011-2012 has been cancelled. The effect of the cancellation is that though petitioner was given the aforesaid order, in view of the cancellation thereof, the petitioner is not to execute that contract. In addition to the challenge laid to the withdrawal orders dated 17.1.2012, the petitioner has also questioned the validity of eligibility criteria No. 2(vi) prescribed by respondent No.1 in Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 15.12.2011 in respect of which NIT, the petitioner was awarded the work. The brief factual matrix leading to the filing of this petition by the petitioner runs as under: 2.Respondents No.1 and 2 issued NIT dated 15.12.2011 through e-procurement for printing, scanning and supplying of OMR sheets for CCEP-II Examination, 201...
Mahesh Sarup Bhatnagar Thr. Lrs. and Others Vs. Naraini Devi and Other ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. (ORAL) RFA No. 108/2004 and C.M. No. 12564/2005 (under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC) 1. This appeal is on the Regular Board of this Court since 02.02.2012, i.e. for about a month. At the request made on behalf of the appellants on 28.02.2012, this case was listed for today. Today, counsel appears for the appellant. On behalf of the respondents, counsel appears for respondent No. 4. For over one hour, I have been very patiently trying to hear the case. The counsel for the appellants, almost inaudibly argues, but, is unable to argue the appeal as he is not prepared. He has no reference of the trial Court record and in fact, the record with him is against the affidavits by way of evidence filed in the trial Court. Various arguments urged on behalf of the counsel for the appellant in fact amount to misleading the Court because it is against the trial Court record. The proxy counsel, who appears for respondent No. 4 said that the main counsel is coming, however, inspite of wai...
Prem Raj Chaudhry Vs. R.C. Ohri
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral) 1. The order impugned before this Court is the order dated 26.09.2001 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) which has endorsed the finding of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 28.04.1998 by virtue of which the objections filed by the objectors under Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) were accepted and the ARC held that the said objectors were not bound by the decree obtained by Prem Raj Chaudhary against them. This finding was endorsed by the RCT in his impugned judgment. 2. Record shows that the landlord Prem Raj Chaudhary had filed an eviction petition against two of his tenants namely R.C. Ohri and Anil Ohri (legal representatives of deceased Dr. Vimla Devi) under Section 14 (1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the DRCA; premises are property bearing No. 172-D, Second Floor, front portion, Kamla Nagar, Subzi Mandi, Delhi; address of the two respondents in the eviction petition was described as C-177, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi; the a...
National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Gurmeet Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The Appellant seeks reduction of compensation of Rs. 35,23,328/- awarded to the Respondent No.1 who suffered serious injuries in an accident which occurred on 07.10.2004. The Claims Tribunal by a judgment dated 06.05.2011 granted the compensation under various heads which can be tabulated as under:- Compensation under differentAwarded by the Claims TribunalTreatment ExpensesRs.2,07,338/-Pain and SufferingsRs.75,000/-Special DietRs.25,000/-ConveyanceRs.9,190/-Attendant’s ChargesRs.2,61,000/-Future attendant’s ChargesRs.8,64,000/- Loss of IncomeRs.6,47,800/- DisabilityRs.14,39,000/- TotalRs..35,28,328/-2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that there is duplication in the award as both the attendant charges for 79 months amounting to Rs.2,61,000/- and the future attendant charges amounting to Rs.8,64,000/- have been awarded. It is submitted that th...
Anuradha Mithal Vs. Alok Kumar Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
P.K.BHASIN, J. This petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958(hereinafter called ‘the Rent Act’) has been filed by the petitioner-landlady against the order dated 09.07.10 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller whereby the application filed by the respondent-tenant seeking leave to defend the eviction petition filed against him by her under Section 14(1)(e) of the Rent Act for his eviction from Flat no. I-101, Friends Apartments Patparganj, Delhi(hereinafter referred to as ‘the tenanted premises’) was allowed and he has been permitted to contest the eviction petition. 2. The petitioner-landlady claiming herself to be the owner of the tenanted premises sought eviction of the respondent on the ground that she required the same to reside there with her daughters. It was pleaded in the eviction petition, which was filed in October,2009, that she was residing in Meerut with her husband and one daughter. Her eldest daughter was emplo...
Rajiv Chopra Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) 1. Vide instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment dated 14.09.2011 and order on sentence dated 17.09.2011 whereby he has been sentenced to undergo SI for six months with fine of RS.1,000/- for offence punishable under Section 279 Indian Penal Code, 1860. Further sentenced to undergo SI for one year with fine of RS.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304A Indian Penal Code, 1860. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Being aggrieved, the applicant/convict assailed the aforesaid judgment and order on sentence before the Sessions Court; whereupon vide order dated 20.01.2012, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi allowed partially and maintained the conviction; however reduced the sentence from one year to nine months only under Section 304A Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. Ms.Rebecca M. John, learned counsel for petitioner, on instructions, submits that petitioner is not challenging the impugned judgment dat...
Union of India and Others Vs. Dr. V.K. Sharma and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. (ORAL) 1. These three writ petitions filed on behalf of the Union of India are in respect of the common order dated 22.10.2010 passed in O.A. Nos. 1194/2010, 748/2010 and 1193/2010 in respect of the respondents Dr V.K. Sharma, Dr Shashi Gokhale and Dr Rajkumari Sharma respectively. 2. Before the Tribunal the said respondents had moved the said original applications with the grievance that they had been over looked for non-functional selection grade in the scale of `. 14300-18300 (pre-revised) whereas doctors junior to them had been promoted by an order dated 12.08.2009. 3. The respondents are Senior Medical Officers (Ayurveda). 4. On behalf of the respondents it had been argued before the Tribunal that they had not been communicated the adverse remarks recorded in their ACRs. It had also been contended that they were not facing any inquiry. The respondents had also stated that they had made representations in this regard but the same had remained without any resp...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »