Delhi Court May 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.
Hardip Kaur Vs. Kailash and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2012
JUDGMENT 1. The Trial Court has dismissed the appellant's suit for possession and mesne profits relating to property bearing No.E-318, East of Kailash, New Delhi which is under challenge in this appeal. For the sake of convenience, the appellant and respondent nos.1 and 2 are referred to by their ranks in the suit as plaintiff, defendant nos.2 and 3 respectively. Mohinder Kaur was defendant No.1 in the suit. 2. The dispute between the parties relate to the first, second and terrace floors of property bearing No.E-318, East of Kailash, New Delhi, hereinafter referred as “the suit property‟. The suit property is built over leasehold plot measuring 125 sq. yards which was originally allotted to Darshan Kaur. Darshan Kaur sold the said plot to the plaintiff on 19th April, 1973 vide construction agreement dated 19th April, 1973 accompanied by General Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiff's nominee, T.S. Chadha. The plaintiff constructed a three storey building over the sa...
Uoi and Others Vs. Balwinder Singh and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2012
A.K. SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. 1. This intra court appeal is filed by the Union of India impugning the judgment dated 29th April, 2011 given by a learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 herein whereby compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- are awarded in favour of the respondent No.1 with direction to the appellants to pay the same. There is also a direction that documents of the respondent No.1 which were seized by the appellants be also returned, if not already done. The prayers made in the petition give some reflection of the grievance of the respondent No.1 made in the writ petition filed by him and we reproduce these prayers: “(a) Issue writ, order or direction(s) in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ/order/direction thereby directing the respondent no.2 and 3 to release all documents of the petitioner seized on 22.2.2010. (b) To direct respondent no.2 and 4 to make all necessary arrangements...
inderpal Singh Vs. the State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J. 1. The petitioner filed this petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking assailing the order dated 15.12.2008 of the SDM, Karol Bagh, New Delhi under Section 145 CrPC. 2. The facts necessitating the disposal of the present petition are that a Kallandra under Section 145 CrPC was presented by the SHO, DBG Road to SDM on 23.5.2000 alleging the apprehension of breach of peace in respect of property bearing No. F-22, DBG Market, Karol Bagh regarding which both, the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2 Sanjeev Hans were claiming to be in possession based on certain documents. Both the parties were leveling allegations against each other. The respondent No. 2 Sanjeev Hans assailed the said Kallandra by filing Crl.M.(M). 2490/2000 in this court, wherein the following order came to be passed: “The only grievance of the petitioner at this stage when the kalandra has been sent by the SHO to the SDM for conducting of the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC is that the SHO h...
Indiabulls Financial Services Limited (India) Vs. Amaprop Limited (Cay ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2012
18.05.2012 1. Indiabulls Financial Services Limited (India) (‘IFSL’) has filed this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’), challenging an Award dated 21st March 2011 of the International Arbitral Tribunal (`Tribunal’) under the International Centre for Dispute Resolution in the dispute between IFSL and Respondent No. 1 Amaprop Limited (Cayman Islands) (‘Amaprop’). Background Facts 2. The disputes between IFSL and Amaprop arose out of a Share Subscription and Shareholders Agreement dated 31st May 2005 (‘Agreement’) entered into by them in terms of which Amaranth LLC, a company incorporated under the Laws of Cayman Islands, the predecessorin- interest of Amaprop, acquired 47.5% shareholding in Indiabulls Finance Company Private Limited (India) (‘IFCPL’) an unlisted company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The agreement gave a right to Amaprop to cause IFSL to purcha...
Samaj Sudhar Samiti Harkesh Nagar (Regd) Through Dhyan Singh Vs. Govt. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2012
VIPIN SANGHI, J. 1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the Samaj Sudhar Samiti Harkesh Nagar (Regd.), through its General Secretary, Sh. Dhyan Singh to seek a writ order or direction in the nature of prohibition, to prohibit the respondents from closing, or in any manner interfering or restricting the access to the residents of Harkesh Nagar Colony from the main road i.e., the Ma Anand Mai Marg. 2. The case of the petitioner is that it is an association of residents of Harkesh Nagar Colony, which was an unauthorized colony regularized by the MCD vide Resolution No.631 dated 06.12.1990. The petitioner submits that its members and residents have been using a connecting road from its colony to the Maa Anand Mai Marg over the years, which falls on an open tract of land. 3. The respondents impleaded in the present writ petition are the Director (Works), GNCT of Delhi; the Chairman, IIT; the Director (Delhi Jal Board); the Commissi...
Gupta Perfumers (P) Ltd Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission and Other ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2012
SANJIV KHANNA, J. 1. In Merchant of Venice, Portia disguised as young law clerk had propounded that the bond only allowed Shylock to remove the flesh, not the blood of Antonio. Further damning Shylock’s case, she said that he must cut one pound of flesh, no more, no less; she asserted “if the scale do turn/But in the estimation of a hair/though diest and all thy goods are confiscate.” The impugned order passed by the Settlement Commission deserves to be upheld for the petitioner herein- Gupta Perfumers (P) Ltd. it is apparent is caught in their own web, which they stoutly and strongly deny. Even now in the writ petition they have urged and argued that their conduct and actions were bonafide and solely guided by the noble and honourable desire to come clean with their inglorious past. The petitioner claims that they without any motive or intention to help a third person, declared undisclosed taxable income of Rs. 1,36,08,897/-. We record that the undisclosed income ha...
Darshan Devi Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2012
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. (ORAL) CM 6395/2012(exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 2965/2012 and CM 6396/2012(direction) 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.3.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A. No. 2510/2011, whereby her said Original Application was rejected. The petitioner had applied for the post of Junior Hindi Translator which had been notified in the Employment News dated 26.09.2009 by the Staff Selection Commission. The cut-off date for the submission of applications was 27.09.2010. The qualifications which were necessary for persons applying for the post of Junior Hindi Translator (in Sub-ordinate Offices) were as under:- “For Junior Hindi Translators(in Subordinate Offices) (i) Master’s Degree of a recognized University or equivalent in English/Hindi with Hindi/English as a compulsory or elective subject at degree level; (ii) Bachelor’...
C.V. Madan Vs. Cbi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral) 1. Proceedings in R.C. No.2/87, C.C. No. 6/99 pending in the Court of Special Judge CBI. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that an FIR No. R C 2/87/CBI/SIU X / NEW Delhi dated 26.05.1987 was registered on the complaint of Shri S.M. Mehra, Regional Manager-I, State Bank of Patiala against the petitioner who worked as Branch Manager in State Bank of Patiala, Janakpuri Branch from May 1985 to Jan 1987 alleging that the petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy with M/s. Keming Tools Co. Pvt. Ltd. and other co-accused persons and committed a fraud of Rs.3.75 crores by disbursing the said amount fraudulently and dishonestly. It has been alleged that in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy M/s. Keming Tools opened a credit account No.254 with the bank on 11.12.1986 and an amount of Rs.3.75 crores was released by the petitioner in the form of term loan to the said company without any appraisal and sanction of the competent authority. The investigation into...
S. Minz Vs. Madhu Bala Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral) 1. This is a revision petition filed against the order of the learned MM dated 11.11.2011, in the Complaint Case No. 44/2008 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) whereby the learned MM dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 45 of the Evidence Act praying for examination of the signatures on the dishonored cheque by the FSL. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that the petitioner issued two cheques bearing cheque no. 549103 dated 17.12.2007 and 549104 dated 26.12.2007 of the amount of Rs. 2.5 lacs each to the complainant/ respondent. The cheques were dishonored on presentation to the bank of the complainant/ respondent citing “insufficient funds”. Thereafter, a legal notice was issued and due to non-payment of the cheque amount, a complaint was filed in the Court of learned MM under Section 138 of the Act. The prosecution evidence was re...
In the Matter of Asha Rani Garg and Others Vs. Mcd and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2012
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition was originally filed by Smt.Asha Rani Garg, praying inter alia for quashing the order dated 18.2.2012 passed by the respondent No.1/MCD under Section 348 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 calling upon the owners/occupiers of premises bearing No.BM-2(East), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, to demolish the building on the ground that the same was in a dangerous condition and was dangerous to the residents of the area. 2. On 28.2.2012 at the stage of admission, counsel for the petitioner was directed to implead the co-owners of the subject premises, namely, Mr.Rajiv Gupta, the owner of the ground floor and Mr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta, the owner of the first floor. An amended memo of parties was also directed to be filed by the petitioner, whereafter, notices were directed to be issued to them. 3. Instead of impleding the aforesaid two persons as co-respondents, an amended memo of parties has been filed by the counsel for the petitioner impleading M...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »