Delhi Court April 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.
Krishan Vs. R.K. Virmani, Air Customs Officer
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2012
1. By this petition the Petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 20th June, 2008 whereby the Learned ACMM, New-Delhi ordered framing of charges against the Petitioner under Section 135 A of the Customs Act, 1962 and the consequential order dated 18th August, 2008 framing charge in case No. 507/1 titled as R.K. Virmani Vs. Shri. Krishan. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the statement of the Petitioner recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act is exculpatory in nature and the statement of Virender Singh Batra, recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be relied upon for the purpose of framing charges as he was not examined as a witness in terms of Section 244 Cr.P.C in the complaint case. Reliance is placed on Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail Vs. Spl. Director, Enforcement Directorate and Anr. 2007 (11) SCALE 741. Relying on Ripen Kumar Vs. Department of Customs, 2001 Cr.LJ 1288 and Anand Kumar Vs. Naresh Arora, 2006 (3) JCC 1491 it is further contended...
Gulshan Kapoor Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits vide FIR No. 466/1991 dated 26.11.1991 u/s 420/468/471/120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at PS Jahangirpuri, Delhi, against the petitioner on the complaint of the respondent no. 2. 2. It is further submitted that respondent no. 2 has amicably settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR and he is not more interested to pursue the case further. Therefore, the instant petition may be allowed and aforementioned FIR may also be quashed. 3. Respondent no. 2, Sh. Raman Bhatia who is personally present in the court who has been identified by his counsel Anangpal Singh, as respondent no.2. He has submitted that he has settled all the issues and prayed to quash the FIR, as he not interested to pursue the case further. If the FIR mentioned above thereto is quashed, he has no objection. 4. It is further submitted that as per the settlement, the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lacs in which Rs. 1 lac has al...
Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. Vs. Torhi Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2012
A.K. SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. 1. The respondent workman herein was served with charge-sheet dated 23.09.1998 at the time when he was serving with erstwhile Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU) as an Inspector. In the charge-sheet, the imputation against him was that he had energized a commercial light connection sanctioned against K.No.614-121778 in favour of one Sh. Girbar Singh at premises of one Mr. Rakesh Kumar on the main road of Babarpur and not at premises No.20-A-3/17, Vishwakarma Road, Babarpur, Shahdara where it was actually to be energized. 2. To put it otherwise, it is not in dispute that the electricity connection had been sanctioned by the officials of the Commercial Department of DESU and the only allegation against the respondent workman was that he had installed the said connection at the wrong address at the instance of one Mr. Rakesh Kumar in whose shop electricity connection was in fact energized and that shop was not at the address for which the electricity...
Laxmi NaraIn @ Rajesh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2012
S. RAVINDRA BHAT 1. The Appellant impugns a judgment and order dated 20.12.2011 in S.C. No. 50/05/10 by which he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498- A and 304-B IPC. He was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of `1,000/- under section 498-A IPC and under section 304- B IPC he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of ` 1,000/-. Although the present appeal was filed in February, 2012, the Court took it up for final hearing, with consent of counsel for the parties, since the incident occurred on 11.03.2005, and the Appellant was in custody for over seven years, at the time of the hearing. 2. The prosecution’s case is that the Appellant Laxmi Narain got married to the deceased Kamlesh on 21.01.2005. On 11.03.200,5 the deceased was found lying near the TV set in her house. The Appellant rushed the deceased to AIIMS hospital in the car of Bhim Raj (PW-2). She was, however declared brought dead; (the MLC...
Deepak Khosla Vs. Montreaux Resorts Pvt Ltd and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2012
SANJIV KHANNA, J.: 1. Deepak Khosla has preferred this intra-Court appeal impugning the order dated 4thJanuary, 2012 passed by the learned single Judge. The impugned order in paragraph 15 gives two directions; that the appellant would not appear in any Court either in person or as an attorney of a third party, as he does not have inherent right to appear and argue; that the appellant should be medically examined whether he was suffering from any mental disorder. The SHO of the police station Tilak Marg was directed to get the appellant admitted in the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS, for short), Shahdara, Delhi. The Medical Superintendent of IBHAS was directed to submit a report within a week. The appellant was ordered not leave the premises of IHBAS and the SHO of the concerned police station was asked to provide adequate security. 2. By order dated 6thJanuary, 2012, in appeal, operation of the second direction in the impugned order was stayed. Medical records...
Shakuntala Chawla Vs. Om Prakash Chawla and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) 1. As per Proviso 1 to Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, a fact may be proved which would invalidate any document or which would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contracting party, want or failure of consideration, or mistake in fact or law. 2. Appellant Shakuntala Chawla, the sister-in-law of the respondents is aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated May 28, 2008, dismissing suit filed by her as not maintainable on the ground of limitation as well on the ground that such a suit is not maintainable. 3. The record of the learned Single would reveal that appellant’s statement under Order 10 was recorded on April 12, 2008 in which she admitted being a graduate and able to read and write English. 4. Order dated May 12, 2008 would reveal that the learned Single Judge heard arguments on admissibility. 5. Thereafter, impugned order da...
Commissioner of Income Tax And#8211; Vi, New Delhi Vs. Usha Internatio ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
SANJIV KHANNA, J: 1. The present appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) was admitted for hearing on 10th January, 2012 and the following substantial question of law was framed:- “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the jurisdictional pre-conditions for reopening under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not satisfied in the present case?” 2. This appeal pertains to assessment year 2001-02 in the case of Usha International Limited, the assessee. 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of trading in consumer durables, such as sewing machines, kitchen appliances, room heaters, air-conditioners etc. For the assessment year 2001-02, the assessee filed its return of income on 29th October, 2001. The case was taken up for scrutiny by issue of notice dated 28th October, 2002 under Section 143(2) of the Act. The assessment order under Section 143(3) was passed on 30th January, 2004, computi...
Sh. Manoj Kumar Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
V.K. JAIN, J. 1. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.11.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (hereinafter referred to the ‘Tribunal’) whereby OA 353/11 filed by the petitioner, was dismissed. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition can be summarized as under:- The petitioner who was working as a Jail Warden, was charge sheeted for unauthorizedly abstaining from duty between 05.08.2007 to 25.06.2008. The period of absence was 05.08.07 to 19.08.07 (15 days), 07.09.07 to 17.10.07(11 days), 20.11.07 to 27.11.07 (08 days), 06.12.07 to 12.12.07 (07 days), 01.01.08, to 05.01.08 (05 days), 27.01.08 to 08.02.08(13 days), 28.02.08 to 10.03.08 (12 days), 22.03.08 to 26.03.08 (05 days), 05.04.08 to 19.04.08 (15 days) and 30.04.08 to 08.06.08. 2. The petitioner received the charge sheet and submitted a reply dated 30.07.2008 claiming that his absence was neither deliberate nor intentional and was purely on account of ...
Jyoti Dua and Another Vs. Dsssb and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
V.K. JAIN, J. 1. By this common order, we will dispose of both the writ petitions referred above. WP(C) No. 8147/2011 is directed against the order dated 4.8.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), whereby OA Nos.751/2010 and 15140/2010 filed by the petitioners in this case were dismissed. WP(C) No. 8572/2011 is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 20.10.2011 whereby OA No.1489/2010 filed by the petitioner in this case, was dismissed by the Tribunal, following its earlier order passed in OA No. 751/2010 and 1540/2010. 2. The facts giving rise to filing of these writ petitions can be summarized as under: The petitioners, who passed their Elementary Teachers Examination (ETE) in the year 2005, either appeared or were eligible to appear in the examination conducted by the Delhi Sub-ordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) in the year 2006, pursuant to its advertisement No. 01/06, for th...
Syed Shabbir Ali Vs. Upsc
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
V.K. JAIN, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.2.2009, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „Tribunal‟), whereby OS No. 133/2009 filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The facts giving to the filing of this writ petition can be summarized as under: The petitioner appeared in Civil Services Examination 2006. He cleared the preliminary examination but could not make it in the main examination. Since the petitioner was informed that he had not done well in English, which was a compulsory paper, his answer book of English paper was rechecked and the marks were re-totaled by the respondents. No mistake was, however, found in the answer sheet since all the answers had been evaluated and there was no totalling mistake. The petitioner, therefore, filed OA No. 133/2009 seeking the following reliefs: “i) to order and direct the Respondent to produce all the records relating to the case including the answ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »