Delhi Court May 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.
Karan Girotr Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2012
1. This is an application filed by the petitioner, Karan Girotra for the grant of anticipatory bail in respect of FIR No.262/2011 under Sections 376/328 IPC read with Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act registered by PS:Prashant Vihar, Delhi. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Shivani Saxena, D/o Sudhir Saxena had lodged a complaint with the Police that she had married to Ishan on 25.9.2009, however, the marriage between them failed within a few days as her husband, Ishan could not consummate the marriage. Both of them started living separately w.e.f. 1.10.2009 and it was amicably settled between them that after the expiry of one year of their marriage, both of them will file a joint petition, on mutual consent, for the grant of divorce, after which both the parties will be free to marry afresh. 3. It is further alleged by her that in the course of chatting on the internet, she had come in contact with one Karan Girotra about six years back from the date of th...
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Narendra Sogani and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2012
V.K. SHALI, J. 1. By virtue of the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has assailed the orders dated 13.7.2010 and 28.1.2011. By the first order, the learned Court of ACMM had imposed a cost of Rs. 2,000/- on the petitioner on the ground of adjournment which was granted for production of Prosecution evidence. So far as the order dated 28.1.2011 is concerned, the same is being assailed on the ground that the petitioner’s evidence has been closed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), through its Intelligence Officer, M.T. Murli filed a complaint under Section 135(1) (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The allegations made in the complaint were that on specific information by the officers of the DRI, an ambassador car, bearing registration No.RNI-600,was intercepted at Kacha Bagh, Delhi on 27.6.1990 at about 10:30 hrs. The said car, along with its four occupants, namely, Narendra So...
icici Bank Ltd. Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2012
1. The present Criminal Leave to Appeal is filed by appellant/complainant ICICI Bank impugning the order dated 2nd May, 2011 vide which the complaint filed by the Appellant Bank under Section 138 NI Act was dismissed under Section 256 (1) Cr.P.C and accused i.e. respondent No.2 was acquitted. 2. The case of the appellant is that the appellant/complainant was prosecuting the matter diligently and appearing on each date. On the date 02.05.2011 when the complaint was dismissed, the AR could not appear before the learned Trial Court due to wrong noting of the date of hearing of the said complaint by the counsel for the complainant. 3. The impugned order has been challenged on the ground that the learned M.M could have adjourned the matter to some other date instead of dismissing the complaint. In the circumstances, that the amount of Rs.11 lacs is involved and it would be a loss of public exchequer if the complaint is not restored, it has been prayed that the complaint be restored in the i...
Meenakshi Choudhrie and Others Vs. D.D.A. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2012
ORDER 1. Petitioners of above captioned 35 petitions are the allottees/lessees of Industrial plots in the Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate and they are challenging the levy of composition charges w.e.f. 1st January, 1993, by the respondent - DDA. Since the grounds of challenge laid by the petitioners to the impugned imposition of composition charges for not completing the construction on the Industrial Plots allotted to them are identical, therefore the above captioned petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order while treating W.P.(C) No. 4197/2000 and W.P.(C) No. 826/2001 as lead cases. 2. Since the basic amenities/infrastructure was not developed, therefore on the representation of Mohan Cooperative Industrial Society and its members, time for construction on the Industrial Plots was extended by the respondent from time to time and finally upto 31st December, 1992 without payment of composition fees. It is the case of the petitioners that th...
Minnie Khadim Ali Kuhn Vs. State Nct of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2012
S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. 1. The writ petitioner, in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeks a direction that her son’s detention by the respondents and refusal to grant bail, was unlawful. He seeks a direction to quash his detention, and further consequential proceedings. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ are that on 01.03.2012 at around 12 PM a police official of P.S Maurice Nagar went to the office of the Principal, St. Stephen’s College (hereafter “the college”) with a bag that he claimed he had found in the Kamla Nehru Ridge. The Vice Principal of the college was asked about the contents of the bag and a statement was recorded, which said that the bag contained some black substance; by 8 PM other police officials had reached the college. It is alleged that the bag containing the black substance belonged to the petitioner’s son. It is alleged that the police officials repeatedly stated in the presence of the Colle...
M/S. Terrific Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Land Acquisition Collector (West ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2012
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. 1. The captioned writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.12.2010 (in the nature of amendment to the award pfassed under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894), passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (West) (in short, LAC) in award bearing no.03/DC(W)/2008-2009 (in short the award). The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the impugned order directs sharing of compensation awarded by virtue of acquisition of the property, being: Khasra no.460, Village Mundka, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the said property), admeasuring 2 bighas 3 biswas i.e., 2150 sq. yds. between itself and respondent no.2. It is the case of the petitioner before us that the compensation awarded qua the aforementioned property should, in its entirety, be paid to it, to the exclusion of respondent no.2. 2. This contention arises in the background of the following facts, which are required to be noticed in order to adjudicate upon the assertions made in the writ petition....
Tata Motors Limited Vs. Jsc Vtb Bank Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2012
A.K. PATHAK, J. 1. By this order, I shall dispose of applications under Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the defendant in the above referred three matters, as the same are in similar facts, inasmuch as, question of law involved therein is also same. 2. “Whether Delhi Courts have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit?” is the question involved in the above matters. 3. Plaintiff has filed above suits under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”, for short) for recovery of the amounts mentioned therein, regarding unpaid “Letters of Credit” issued by JSC VTB Bank, Mantaznikov Street 2B, Ekaterinburg, Sverdlovsk Region, Russia 620050 (for short hereinafter referred to as “Russian Bank”). 4. It is alleged that the plaintiff had supplied truck chassis units to a Joint-Stock Company, Cars And engines Of Ural, a body incorporated under the laws of Russia, having its registered office at 1, A...
Ramesh Chand JaIn Vs. Suresh Kumar Kohli
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2012
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral) 1. Impugned judgment is dated 30.11.2011; vide which the eviction petition filed by the landlord Suresh Kumar Kohli seeking eviction of his tenant Ramesh Chand Jain from the disputed premises i.e. a shop bearing municipal No.2656, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi had been decreed and application seeking leave to defend had been declined. 2. Record shows that the present eviction petition had been filed by the landlord on the ground of bonafide requirement; the grounds for eviction are contained in para 18; petitioner alleged that he is the owner of the suit property; his father Bhagat Raj Kohli and his father-in-law Sardar Chand Narang were the joint owners of the property bearing No.2656; they had let out the shop to the aforenoted tenant vide a lease deed dated 15.11.1975; the original tenant was Ishwar Chand Jain and after his death the respondent namely Ramesh Chand Jain had become the tenant by survivorship. Father-in-law of the petitioner had filed a s...
Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. Vs. Aditya Pandey and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. What we commonly understand as a song consists of three elements: lyrics, music and singing. There are three players. The lyricist who provides the words; the musician who provides the music score; and the singer who provides the sound to the words. The trinity join: a song is created. Thus, a song is music which is vocal in character. It is but natural that in a song, the words and the music have a special relationship. Words affect the melodic line, even the rhythmic structure. The inflection of the language in the lyrics leaves an imprint on the melody and the rhythm; on style and phrasing. When a song is sung there is a moving romance between the words and the music. 2. Do the identities break when their fusion creates a synthesized product i.e. when a song is recorded? 3. Undoubtedly, when a song is recorded there is homogenization of the lyrics with the musical score; where integration is articulated through the multi-level hierarchical system of inter-de...
K.L. Rajgarhia Vs. Canara Bank
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) 1. Vide a written memorandum captioned: “AGREEMENT”, Ex.P- 1, dated December 07, 1984, appellant and Canara Bank, a body corporate, constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 recorded the terms to which they had agreed. 2. The recitals record that the appellant held, under the President of India, perpetual lease-hold right with respect to Plot No.9, Block B, East of Kailash and was desirous of constructing residential flats on the land. Vide recital No.5 it stands recorded as under:- “5. The Vendor has proposed that he will construct residential flats on the said plot of land in accordance with the plan annexed hereto and of the area as specified in Schedule-I hereto, at his own cost for the use of purchaser as residential premises and further agree to sell to the purchaser the said flats alongwith the lease hold rights over the said plot of land and the purchaser herein agrees to purchase t...
- ‹ Prev
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- Next ›
- Last »