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.
iqbal Singh Vs. Vijender Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of Rs.35,000/- awarded in favour of the Appellant for having suffered serious injuries in a motor accident which occurred on 04.01.1989. 2. The manner of the accident is extracted from the opening para of the impugned judgment hereunder: “….According to the petitioner, on 4.1.89 at about 6.30 P.M. he along with his brother Harjinder Singh was returning from Noida and was going to Jama Masjid on Moped No.DDY-1636 and his brother was sitting on the pillion of the Moped and when the Moped reached Ring Road, Rose Garden, in front of I.G. Stadium, a Premier-118 car hit the Moped of the petitioner. As a result of which, he fell down on the road and unfortunately, a DTC Bus No.DLP-3002 driven by respondent No.1 Vijender Singh in a rash and negligent manner and run over the petitioner and his brother Harjinder Singh. The right arm of the petitioner was completely crushed under the wheels of the bus and his b...
Kumud and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. Certified copy of the evidence recorded by the Claims Tribunal has been filed by the learned counsel for the Appellants. The same is taken on record. 2. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of Rs.12,90,540/- awarded for the death of Deepak Panchal who died in a motor accident which occurred on 27.03.2009. 3. It was proved on record that the deceased was working as an electrician with Uttam Sucrotech International Pvt. Ltd. and was getting a salary of Rs.9,231/- per month on the date of the accident. The Claims Tribunal accepted the deceased’s salary as claimed, deducted 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses and applied the multiplier of ‘17’ to compute the loss of dependency as Rs.12,55,416/-. 4. The contentions on behalf of the Appellants are: (i) There should have been deduction of 1/4th towards the personal and living expenses instead of 1/3rd as the number of dependents were 4. (ii) No addition on account of future pro...
Shri Rajiv Khanpuri Vs. Canara Bank
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2012
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. (ORAL) 1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is by the appellant/plaintiff to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 5.6.2004 decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff-bank for recovery of Rs. 1,67,900/- with interest @ 12% per annum and proportionate costs, which was filed as the appellant/defendant failed to repay the amount of a dishonoured cheque which he had withdrawn. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/defendant deposited a cheque of Rs. 1,50,000/- with the respondent-bank and which was presented for encashment through clearing on 3.11.1999. The account of the appellant/defendant was credited on the same date. The cheque in question was returned unpaid on 4.11.1999, however, the dishonoured cheque alongwith memo of drawee bank was lost in the transit and therefore the respondent-bank could not make a debit entry of the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- for adjust...
Kamla Devi Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2012
S.P.Garg, J. (Open Court) 1. Kamla Devi and her father Akbar were arrested and charge-sheeted for committing the murder of Kanwar Pal Singh on the night intervening 16/17.11.1986 at Shastri Park, opposite C-Block within the jurisdiction of police station Seelampur. The Trial Court by the impugned judgment dated 29.04.1998 acquitted Akbar of the charges and convicted Kamla for committing the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.2000/- by order on sentence dated 30.04.1998. 2. The prosecution alleged that the deceased (Kanwar Pal Singh) and Kamla (accused) had illicit relations and used to live together at Gulabi Bagh, Delhi. In November 1985, the wife and children of deceased went to stay with him at Delhi. Thereafter, the deceased and his family started living in a rented house at Kartar Nagar. The accused did not like his rejection of her and hatched a conspiracy to murder him. 3. The deceased used to work in ...
M/S. National Research Development Corp. Vs. Ineos Abs Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) 1. Appellant’s suit seeking decree in sum of `25,34,964.62 stated to be the royalty due under an agreement dated July 23, 1975 has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, holding that the claim, being based upon a patent must fail for the reason Section 68 of the Patents Act, 1970 mandated an assignment of a patent by way of a license to be not only in writing but filed with the Controller of Patents for being registered with him. 2. It is not in dispute that the license deed Ex.PW-1/3 upon which the suit has been filed was neither filed before the Registrar of Patents and thus was not registered. 3. It is the case of the appellant that Ex.PW-1/3 does not pertain to a patent but to a „know-how‟. 4. The learned Single Judge has noted that Clause 1 of the deed in question itself refers to the grant being to use the invention for the manufacture of ABS Resigns covered by Indian Patent No.110090 and 118359. The learned Single Judge has not...
Ram Charan Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) 1. Vide the present petition, the relief sought by the petitioner is as under:- (i) A writ of mandamus in the nature of the directions or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent no. 1 and 2 extend the pensionary benefit in regard to the service done by the petitioner with Indian Air Force for about 21 years service and accordingly released the pension and other benefits attached with the service of the petitioner with the Indian Air Force. (ii) A writ in the nature of directions to the respondent no. 3 to count the service i.e. 20 years, 8 months and 3 days of the petitioner with the Indian Air Force in the service done by the petitioner with the respondent no. 3, as driver and accordingly the benefits of the same should also be extended to him i.e. of pension, G.P.F. and other benefits which are payable to him according to the rules and regulations of Haryana State Electricity Board. (iii) Issue a direction to the respondent no. 3 to revise the pens...
U.V. Uttamchandani Vs. University of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2012
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (Open Court) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 11.02.2004 in C.W.P. No. 3542/1990. The present Appellant had filed a writ proceeding seeking various reliefs in the form of directions. By the impugned judgment that writ petition, seeking the reliefs against the Delhi University, was dismissed. 2. The writ petitioner, an engineering graduate claims to have had 16 years working experience when he applied to the post of University Engineer on 16.11.1977, in the pay scale of Rs. 1100-50-1600. He was offered appointment as temporary work-charged Executive Engineer, through a letter dated 29.05.1978 which he accepted. In 1990, the Appellant filed the writ petition seeking several reliefs including a declaration that his appointment should be treated as on to a regular post of University Engineer. During the course of hearing in the appeal, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Appellant argued that in vi...
Sh. Kavi Ghei Vs. Rohit Vaid and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2012
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral) 1. By this order, I propose to decide the present application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 CPC for expunging/deleting the cross-examination of DW-1 and DW-2 by the defendant No.3. 2. In the present suit, the defendant No.4 was examined and discharged, vide order dated 13.11.2011. Admittedly, DW-3 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.DW-3/A before the Joint Registrar on 19.04.2011. His cross-examination was deferred at the request of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. After examination of DW-4, when DW-3 was present on 30.11.2011, a statement was made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that he would cross-examine this witness after the cross-examination by defendants No.1 and 2. Thereafter, the matter was listed before Court to resolve the said controversy. 3. Few facts as per plaintiff’s averments are that the defendants No.1 and 2 agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.3,22,50,000/-. Certain ...
V.K. JaIn Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2012
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.09.2002 passed in OA No.1750/2000 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The facts are that the petitioner had joined the Indian Railways as an Apprentice in the year 1973. Subsequently, he was appointed as an Assistant Transportation Manager w.e.f. 02.11.1983 which is a Group “B” post and was promoted to a Group “A”post in Senior Times Scale on ad hoc basis. While he was so working, he was inducted into Group “A”Junior Scale by a notification dated 22.07.1992. The petitioner represented to the Secretary, Ministry of Railways to the effect that his induction to the Group “A” post should be regularized against the vacancy of the year 1985 instead of the actual induction in 1992. The representation of the petitioner had been rejected on the plea that his promotion w.e.f. 01.06.1992 had been done as his name had been approved by ...
Cit Vs. Winner Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2012
SANJIV KHANNA,J. (ORAL) 1.Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) impugning the order dated 6.8.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“Tribunal”, for short) in the case of Winner Constructions Pvt. Ltd. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2006-07. 2. While issuing notice on this appeal vide order dated 31st May, 2011, the notice was limited to the following question of law: “Whether the Tribunal erred in deleting the trading addition of Rs.42,88,000/- made by the AO after rejecting the books of accounts?” 3. We have heard counsel for the parties and proceed to dictate our decision. 4. The Assessing Officer rejected the books of accounts inter alia recording the following reasons: (1) The net profit of 1.28% declared by the assessee was low in comparison to prescribed profitability of 8% in Section 44AD of the Act. (2) The real net profit was Rs. 2,76,592/- against the total t...
- ‹ Prev
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- Next ›
- Last »