Delhi Court April 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.
Shoukat Rai Malhotra and Another Vs. Dellatora Enterprises Ltd. and An ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
1. By the present petition the Petitioners seek quashing of the summoning order dated 27th July, 2010 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate against the Petitioners in criminal complaint No. 1594/2001. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that taking the contents of the complaint as also the pre-summoning evidence on their face value, the commission of any offence by the Petitioners punishable under Section 406/420 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC is not disclosed. The entire case of the Respondent is that on certain representations made by accused No.1 Sanjay Malhotra between May to September, 2006 the complainant/Respondent invested the money in the shares. There is no allegation that the Petitioners misrepresented or entered into any correspondence. No evidence in this regard has been produced by the complainant/Respondent. The only allegation set out against the Petitioners in the complaint is that the Petitioners were the first Directors of the accused No.6 i.e. S...
Kavita Dass Vs. Nct of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
SURESH KAIT, J: 1. Vide this common judgment, I shall dispose of both the above mentioned petitions. 2. The petitioner has sought to quash FIR No.157 dated 07.12.2011 registered under Section 448 Indian Penal Code, 1860 at PS. Defence Colony, New Delhi against petitioner/wife and to set aside order dated 28.11.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saket District Courts, New Delhi in Appeal CA No.35/11 in case titled „Kavita Dass Vs Ranjit Dass‟. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner got married to respondent No.2 on 26.12.1975 at Delhi. After marriage, the petitioner and respondent No.2 lived together in abroad (Sri Lanka and Australia) as husband and wife for 12 long years. Two sons were born out of the said wedlock in 1978 and 1981 respectively. The elder son Rajad Das is married and settled in London while the younger son has been living in Delhi. 4. In 1992, the respondent No.2 acquired a license to start his own company in the name and style o...
Nirmal Joshi Vs. Mathura Dutt Joshi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
VEENA BIRBAL, J: (ORAL) 1. The counsel for appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 02.02.2012 by contending that the learned trial court at Tis Hazari dealing with the aforesaid case has no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter. It is contended that the respondent/husband ought to have filed the divorce petition at Dwarka Courts. After some arguments learned counsel submits that she is not pressing the aforesaid contention before this court and prays that liberty be given to take appropriate remedy in accordance with law. In view of above submissions made, the aforesaid contention is dismissed as having not been pressed. However, petitioner/wife will be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings at appropriate forum in accordance with law. 2. The next ground on which the impugned order is challenged is that the right of the petitioner/wife to cross-examine the respondent/husband has been closed by the learned trial court. The learned counsel for the appellant/wife...
Sanjiv Kumar Vs. Cbi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
1. By this petition the Petitioner challenges the order dated 23rd July, 2011 directing and framing charge against the Petitioner for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 420/467/468 and 471 IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short „PC Act‟) and also for substantive charge under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act and Section 420 IPC. 2. The Petitioner who appears in person states that the list he took to the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was fake list and which he submitted to the government was a genuine list. The allegations as stated in the charge sheet are a statistical impossibility and thus no charge can be framed against the Petitioner. There is no evidence that the Petitioner broke the seals and tampered with the list. Two witnesses have been trumped up against the Petitioner to allege that the Petitioner has manipulated the list. It is alleged that the Petiti...
Reliance Industries Ltd Vs. Madan Stores P. Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. An award dated August 31, 2005 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising Justice A.M.Ahmadi (Retd. Chief Justice of India), Justice A.B.Rohtagi (Retd.) and Justice S. Sahay (Retd.) has been upheld by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated November 06, 2007. 2. While upholding the award, the learned Single Judge has corrected the apparent calculation mistakes and in respect of which there is no dispute between the parties; of course, whether the amount would be payable by the appellant to the respondent as recalculated would be subject to the answer to the main question: Whether the impugned award is contrary to the public policy as per the law declared by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as AIR 2003 SC 2629 ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. 3. Since we are agreeing, with the view taken by the learned Single Judge who has extensively dealt with the challenge laid to the award, and since before us the same contentions which were urged before the ...
Niranjan Patel Vs. Uoi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
1. By this petition, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the order and inquiry report dated 14th May, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi under Section 5 of the Extradition Act, 1962 in CC. No.79/1/08 whereby the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate recommended extradition of the Petitioner to the United States of America (USA). 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the request for extradition made by the Government of USA was in breach of mandatory provisions of the Indo-US Extradition Treaty (in short „the Treaty‟), especially Article 9(4)(a) of the said Treaty which provides that the request for extradition relating to a person, who has been convicted of an offence for which extradition is sought shall be supported by “a copy of the judgment of conviction or, if such copy is not available, a statement by a judicial authority that a person has been convicted”. Since copy...
Bijender Singh and Another Vs. Govt. of Nct and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
V.K. JAIN, J: 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.11.11 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short „the Tribunal‟), whereby OA 1000/2010, filed by the petitioners, was dismissed. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are as follows:- Petitioner No.1, Bijender Singh was appointed as a Work Attendant with the Directorate of Training and Technical Education, in the year 1992, whereas petitioner No.2, Rajbir Singh was appointed as Instructor Diesel Mechanic. 14 vacancies in the posts of Foreman Instructors/surveyors/Senior Technical Assistants were advertised for being filled up by way of direct appointment. 9 out of those 14 vacancies were unreserved. The SSC recommended 12 names for appointment. While making its recommendations, the assessee had also drawn a panel of 5 wait listed candidates. The names of both the petitioners figured in the said panel and both of them had applied for the u...
Indian Telecom Service Association and Others Vs. Union of India and O ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
V.K. JAIN, J: 1. This batch of writ petitions are directed against the orders dated 21.10.2005 and 31.10.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in OA No. 1963/2005 and other connected OAs. 2. Pursuant to its decision to set up a Public Sector Corporation viz. MTNL from 1.4.1986, Government of India, Ministry of Communications, Department of Telecommunications vide order dated 18.3.1986 directed that on commencement of operations of MTNL w.e.f. 1.4.1986, the staff of Delhi and Bombay telephone districts working within the jurisdiction of Union Territory of Delhi and Bombay, New Bombay and Thane Municipal areas, will be deemed to be transferred on deputation to MTNL, on existing terms and conditions without any deputation allowance for a maximum period of 05 years. It was further directed that till the terms and conditions of service in MTNL were decided and options were called from the concerned Officers of Department of Telec...
Jawaharlal Nehru Co-operative Housing Society Ltd Vs. Municipal Corpor ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
HIMA KOHLI, J: (Oral) 1. The petitioner/Society has filed the present petition praying inter alia for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents No.1and2/MCD to take action against the unauthorized construction/encroachment in the respective flats of the residential complex of the petitioner/Society and for further directions to the respondents No.1 and 2/MCD to stop the ongoing unauthorized construction in flats mentioned in prayer (b) of the writ petition. 2. A series of orders have been passed in the present case from time to time, directing the respondent/MCD to undertake a survey of the petitioners’ Complex and identify the flats where unauthorized construction had been carried out and further, to remove the unauthorized construction as per law and in a sequential manner, without targeting a particular block. 3. On the last date of hearing, i.e., on 15.11.2011, counsel for the respondent/MCD had stated that 75-80% of the demolition work had already been undertaken by...
Satya Vs. the Director (Printing) Directorate of Printing B Wing, Nirm ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2012
M.L. Chauhan: 1. The applicant has filed the present OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs: “(a) Quash and set aside the Impugned notice dated 31.10.2011 to terminate the services of the applicant on the post of Asst. Binder, issued by the respondents. (b) Any other order that may be deemed fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the case may also be passed.” 2. When the matter was listed on 24.11.2011, while issuing the notice to the respondents, this Tribunal has passed the following orders:- “The grievance of the applicant is regarding impugned order dated 31.10.2010 (Annexure A-1) whereby it has been stated that the services of the applicant shall stand terminated after the expiry of the period of one month. From the material placed on record, it is also evident that initially respondents have initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant by issuing the charge sheet dated 24.5.2011 (Annexure A-6) but it appears that subsequently the resp...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »