Delhi Court March 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.
Neeraj Khullar and Another Vs. Virender Kumar Khullar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
JUDGMENT 1. These three petitions arise out of a common set of facts and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Petitioner No.1, Neeraj Khullar and the Respondent, Virender Kumar Khullar, are the sons of late Shri Bansi Lal Khullar. Petitioner No.2, Smt. Vidyawanti Khullar, is their mother. 3. Petitioner No.1 and the Respondent along with their deceased father Shri Bansi Lal Khullar were carrying on the business of a partnership firm under the name and style of M/s Oriental Drapers and Tailors. Their business is stated to be over five decades old with Shri Bansi Lal Khullar, by the founder. 4. On 2nd May 1984, a Deed of Partnership was executed including late Shri Bansi Lal Khullar, the Respondent (who is the elder son) and Petitioner No.1. In terms of para 8 of the said Partnership Deed, the profits and losses of the firm were to be shared between the parties in the following proportion: a. Party of the First Part (Shri Bansi Lal Khullar) 35% b. Party of the Second Part (Shri ...
Union of India and Others Vs. Hardam Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
1. This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 23.12.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby OA No. 1670/2010 filed by the respondent was allowed. The brief facts of the are summarized as under:- The respondent was working as a Heavy Vehicle Driver with Delhi Milk Scheme (DMS). A charge-sheet was served upon him alleging therein that he had attempted to pilfer 35 milk poly packs while on the duty of distribution of milk. A penalty of compulsory retirement was inflicted upon the respondent by the General Manager, DMS. The appeal preferred by the respondent was dismissed by Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries. The penalty of compulsory retirement was challenged by the respondent by filing OA No. 193/1992 which was decided on 15.10.1997. It was contended before the Tribunal that the Disciplinary Authority in the case of the respondent was Deputy General Manager and not the General Manager and Appella...
Pragun Buildtech (P) Ltd Vs. Sarla Aggarwal and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. 1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for partition and possession against nine defendants. 2. The defendants claim that defendant Nos.1 to 4 were the members/co-parceners of the HUF, Gajanand and Sons with Late Shri Gajanand being karta while defendant Nos.5 to 9 were the members/co-parceners of the HUF, Aggarwal and Sons with Arjun Prakash Aggarwal being the karta. 3. On 30.01.1967, a registered deed was prepared between the respective Kartas of both the families and a property being No.2, East Park Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 admeasuring 2400 sq.yards (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) was jointly purchased through Mrs. Rosy Gloria, the erstwhile owner of the said property. The said property was held by both the HUF‟s in equal proportions to the extent of 1200 sq yards each. The two HUF‟s were entitled to deal with their respective undivided shares. 4. Case of the Plaintiff a) That on 08.04.1984, Gajanand and Sons got dissolv...
Areva T and D India Ltd Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. 1. The three appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) raise a common issue of law and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. ITA No.315/2010 was admitted vide order dated 27th January, 2011 with the following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that know-how, business contacts, business information, etc. acquired as part of the slump sale described as „goodwill‟were not entitled for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act?” 3. To appreciate the question of law involved in the present appeal the relevant facts necessary for disposal of ITA No.315/2010 are enumerated as below:- (i) The assessee Company is presently engaged in transmission and distribution business of power. The business involves, inter alia, designing, manufacturing, supplying, installation, testi...
Devender Kumar Yadav Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
V.K. JAIN, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.05.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) whereby OA No. 97/2010 filed by the petitioner, was dismissed. The brief facts giving rise to filing of this petition are as follows: An advertisement was issued by Delhi Police in the year 2007 for filling up 2536 vacancies in the cadre of Constable (Executive) Male. The petitioner, who applied for the said post was successful in Physical Endurance and Measurement Test, written test and interview and was declared as provisionally selected subject to verification of character and antecedents. In his application form, the petitioner had disclosed that he had been involved in a criminal case registered vide FIR No. 32, dated 07.03.2006. Yet another FIR No. 149 dated 04.09.2007 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Farukh Nagar, Gurgaon on 04.09.2007. Registration of bo...
Rakesh Kumar Garg Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) CRL. M.As 3907-08/2012 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL. M.C. 1106/2012 1. Notice issued. 2. Mr. Navin Sharma, learned APP for State accepts notice on behalf of State. 3. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the instant petition is taken up today for final disposal. 4. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that vide the instant petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No. 228/2011, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/354/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 at P.S. Ranhola on the complaint of respondent No.2/complainant against the petitioner. 5. Further submits that the matter has amicably been settled between the parties and petitioner and respondent No.2 are living happily as husband and wife. In view of amicable settlement arrived at between the parties and in view of the fact that both are residing together as husband and wife, the above mentioned FIR be quashed in the intere...
Amarjeet Singh Vs. State Govt. of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) 1. Notice issued. 2. Ld. APP accepts notice on behalf of the State. 3. With the consent of the parties instant petition is taken for final disposal. 4. Vide the instant petition, petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 23.02.2012 passed by ld. Addl. Sessions Judge on an application being moved by the petitioner under Section 330 Cr.P.C. for postponement of trial and to release the petitioner. 5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the medical document i.e. OPD Card no. 2011-8-32784 dated 01.10.2011 in which it has been observed by Dr. Vijender Singh IHBAS (Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences) found some psychiatric illness. On account of which he has been referred to certain measures which are prescribed on the out-door patient card. 6. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has referred Section 329 and Section 330 Cr.P.C. whereby it is provided that no order for the detention of accused in a lunatic asylum shall be made othe...
Anil Kapoor Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) CRL. M.A. 3941/2012 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL. M.A. 3942/2012 (Delay) Delay condoned. The application is disposed of. CRL. M.C. 1119/2012 1. Notice issued. 2. Ms. Rajdipa Behura, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of State. 3. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the matter is taken up for disposal today. 4. Ld. counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR No. 14 dated 12.01.2005, a case was registered against the petitioners on complaint of complainant/respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under sections 403/406/418/420/468 IPC at P.S. Vasant Vihar, Delhi. 5. Further submits that all the disputes between the parties have amicably been settled vide compromise dated 07.02.2009. In view of the said compromise, respondent No.2 is no more interested to pursue the case and has no objection if the FIR is quashed. An affidavit to this effect is annexed with the petition at page 8. 6. Respondent N...
Nirmaljit Singh Narula Vs. Indijobs at Hubpages.Com and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral) I.A. No.6040/2012 (u/S 151 CPC for exemption) This application has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of CPC, seeking exemption from filing the original and or/fair typed copies of the dim documents at this stage. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and eight weeks time is granted to file the clear copies of documents. The application is disposed of. I.A. No.6041/2012 (O 13 R 1 r/w S 151 CPC for exemption) Heard. Allowed to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. CS(OS) 871/2012 Let the plaint be registered as a suit. Issue summons to the defendants, on filing of process fee and registered AD cover within one week, returnable on 04.05.2012. I.A. No.6038/2012 (u/O XXXIX, R.1 and 2 CPC) 1. Issue notice for the date fixed. 2. The Plaintiff claims that he is a highly revered spiritual guide, renowned worldwide for his spiritual discourses as “Nirmal baba”. He is known for his spiritual teach...
Krishan Lal Vs. Smt. Manju
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
VEENA BIRBAL, J. 1. By way of present appeal, the appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 22.10.2009 passed by learned Addl. Distict Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, by which application under order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC filed by him praying for setting aside the ex parte divorce decree dated 24.02.2005 in HMA petition no.402/2003 has been dismissed. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of present appeal are as under:- Parties were married to each other on 11.04.1992 at New Delhi. The status of appellant was ‘widower’ at the time of marriage with respondent and the respondent was ‘widow’. It was their second marriage. Respondent/wife has two children from first marriage. An ex parte divorce decree was passed in favour of the respondent on 24.02.2005 by the learned ADJ, Delhi dissolving the marriage between the parties on the ground of cruelty and desertion i.e. under Section 13(1)(ia)and(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter refer...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »