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.
Bata India Ltd. Vs. Anil Kumar Bahl
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral) 1. The impugned judgment is dated 04.01.2011; the eviction petition filed by the landlord Anil Kumar Bahl against his tenant Bata India Ltd seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement as contained in Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been decreed; the application seeking leave to defend filed by the tenant had been dismissed. 2. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord who is a resident of B-127/2, DDA Flat, East of Kailash, New Delhi. The premises in dispute is a shop bearing municipal No. XV/4745, abadi of main bazaar, Paharganj Masjid, New Delhi. The tenant is in occupation of these premises for commercial purpose at the monthly rent of Rs.1,200/- per month. The petitioner is stated to be an employee of a bank; he has three daughters of whom two are professionally qualified and have qualified entrepreneur skills; the second daughter although professionally qualified is ...
Charanjeet Gaba Vs. Arjun Lal Ahuja and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C preferred by the petitioner assailing an order dated 14.10.2009 passed by learned ASJ, Karkardooma Courts in Criminal Appeal No.13/2009. Vide this order, the Appellate Court of learned ASJ set aside the judgment of conviction of respondents herein under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act (“the Act” for short). 2. This petition raises a short, but important question of law relating to powers of the Appellate Court under Section 391 Cr.PC. The respondents herein were convicted under Section 138 of the Act by learned MM vide his judgment dated 17.02.2006. They carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Court of learned ASJ. Before the Appellate Court, they filed an application under Section 391 Cr.PC for leading additional evidence. The same was allowed by learned ASJ vide the impugned order. While allowing this application, the learned ASJ set aside the conviction and remanded the case back to learned ...
Directorate of Gurdwara Elections and Others Vs. Dashmesh Sewa Society ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J 1. These intra court appeals by, (i) the Directorate of Gurdwara Elections, (ii) the Lieutenant Governor, Delhi, and (iii) the Government of NCT of Delhi, impugn the common judgment dated 7th February, 2012 of a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 4166/2011 and WP(C) No. 311/2012 preferred by the respondents (a) Dashmesh Sewa Society (Regd.) and Shiromani Akali Dal (Delhi-U.K.) and (b) Shri Harmohan Singh respectively. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has inter alia directed the appellants, to first complete the process of preparation of fresh electoral rolls and the process of delimitation of wards/ constituencies before notifying the general elections to the post of members of the respondent Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee (DSGMC). It may be stated that the appellants had vide public notice dated 27th /28th January, 2012, scheduled the said Elections on 11th March, 2012 with notification for conduct of elections and fili...
In the Matter of Md. Mobashashir Sarwar Vs. Jamia Millia Islamia and O ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
HIMA KOHLI, J. 1. The petitioner, a student of XI standard in the respondent No.4/School had filed the present petition through his local guardian, Mr.M.Munawwer Hussain on 18.3.2011, praying inter alia for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the expulsion order dated 20.12.2010 issued by respondent No.3/Director and respondent No.4/Principal, Jamia Senior Secondary School, expelling him from the school and banning his entry in the school campus. The second prayer made in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to stay in the hostel and to attend his classes in XI standard and permit him to sit for the examinations conducted by respondent No.4/School through the scheme of Compartment/Re-examination 2011. 2. It may be noted at the outset that the second relief sought by the petitioner hereinabove no longer survives for the reason that during the pendency of the present petition, by virtue of an interim order dated ...
Shanta Aneja Vs. Satbir Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral) 1. The plaintiff has filed the instant suit for specific performance and permanent injunction. 2. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is the owner of the entire second floor bearing private Nos.6 and 7 that form a part of the property bearing No.80, situated at Furniture Block, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’). Vide an Agreement to Sell dated 18.07.2009, the defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.30,33,333/- and even received a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- as earnest money/advance-cum-part payment from the plaintiff at the time of execution of the said Agreement to Sell and issued two receipts dated 18.07.2009 ofRs.5,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- respectively. The plaintiff was required to pay the balance amount of Rs.21,00,000/- to the defendant within a period of 14 months and the last date of execution of documents in favour of the plaintiff was on or before 17.09.2010....
Jiyuan Li and Another Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J. 1. The present petitions assail the order dated 11.09.2007 passed by the Ld. Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) summoning the petitioners in CC No. 939/07. 2. The brief facts are that the Respondent/ Complainant i.e. Registrar of Companies (ROC) received a complaint regarding the affairs of M/s. Tianjin Tianshi India Pvt. Ltd. (the Company) being irregular and illegal. A letter dated 24.02.2004 was issued by the ROC to the company to inquire about its affairs. This was duly replied vide letter dated 15.04.2004. The reply was examined and thereafter an order dated 19.04.2004 under section 234(1) of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to the “Act”) was issued to the company which remained unresponded. Thereafter another order dated 16.06.2004 u/s 234 (3A) of the Act was issued by ROC requesting the Company to furnish the desired information, but no response was received. As no response was received qua the aforesaid two orders, a show cause notice dated ...
Arun Kumar JaIn and Another Vs. Dda
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
1. Violation of terms and conditions of the Lease Deed executed by the petitioners on 27th January, 1994 in respect of Plot No.81, Pocket A-2, Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi, allotted to Petitioner - A.K.Jain vide letter of 1st July, 1984 under the Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981 alleged was that both the petitioners who had married on 27th November, 1985, had at the time of execution of the Lease Deed in question, furnished false affidavits to the effect that neither of them were owning any other property. Whereas, the second petitioner was allotted Plot No.223, Pocket G-29, Sector 3, Rohini, Delhi, under the aforesaid Scheme on 29th December, 1983 and lease in respect thereof, was executed on 5th May, 1998. Relevantly, at the time of execution of the aforesaid Lease Deed of 5th May, 1998 the second petitioner was already married to the first petitioner but she had submitted an Affidavit to the effect that the lease be executed in her single name i.e., her maiden name - Shama Ra...
Vijay Saraogi and Others Vs. M/S. Anupam Poly Products and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) 1. Before entangling with the facts of the instant case, it would be appropriate to mention that this case is connected with Crl.M.C.No.3327/2000 which has since been allowed today itself. The facts in both the cases are almost similar and wherever they differ same shall be accordingly dealt in present order. 2. Vide order dated 03.06.2011 it is recorded as under:- “Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that she has not received any instructions from respondent No.1 since long time. She had issued a notice to respondent No. 1 informing him that in case no instructions are received, she would be withdrawing from the brief as also intimating the next date of hearing i.e. 31st May, 2011. Order dated 31st May, 2011 shows that statement to this effect was made on that date but since notice was not placed on record, the matter was adjourned for today. Photocopy of notice and postal receipt have been placed on record. Since respondent No.1 has stopped givin...
Shiva Cement Ltd. Represented Through Its Managing Director Rajendra P ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
The Appellant Company is running a Mini Cement Plant and operating Lime Stone Mines at Khatkurbahal and Kulenbahal in the District of Sundargarh (Odisha). It intended to enhance its plant capacity vis--vis the capacity of the mining operation and filed an application before the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) for granting necessary approval in the year 2009. On the basis of such application Terms of Reference (TORs) were issued by the MoEF by letter dated 15th December, 2009. Thereafter, the Appellant collected base line data on ambient air quality, water quality, noise level, soil and flora and fauna and also complied with other stipulations made in the TOR and submitted EIA/EMP report alongwith a draft of Rs.75,000/- (seventy five thousand) for conducting Public Consultation to the Odisha State Pollution Control Board (OSPCB). 2. While matter stood thus, the period of mining lease of the Appellant in respect of lime stone mines was about to expire on 14th January, 2012. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›