Delhi Court June 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.
Vikas Garg and Others Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral) 1. This is a petition U/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 281/2011 U/s 302/304-B/498-A/34 IPC registered at P.S. Nangloi, Delhi and the related proceedings pending in the court of Learned M.M. tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. 2. The above mentioned FIR was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2 Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal, the father of the deceased Bhumi @ Bhawna. It was stated in the said FIR that the marriage of his daughter Bhawna was solemnized with petitioner No.1 Vikas Garg on 24.02.2008 and his daughter was continuously harassed by her in-laws, namely, Petitioner Nos. 2 to 8 in relation to demand of dowry. It was alleged that his deceased daughter was time and again taunted, harassed and also beaten up in order to pressurize him to fulfil their unending demand for dowry. It was further alleged that even at the time of the birth of a son, the deceased was harassed by her in-laws who complained that very few items were given by her parents on this occasion. ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sunaero Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
SANJIV KHANNA, J. 1.Revenue in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) impugns order dated 26th October, 2007, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal, for short) in the case of Sunaero Limited, the respondent assessee. The appeal arises from the block assessment order for the period 1st April, 1990 to 21st November, 2000, as the respondent assessee was subject to search and seizure operation on 21st November, 2000. 2. We are required to decide the following substantial questions of law, which were framed vide order dated 11th November, 2011:- “(i) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs.21 crores made by the Assessing Officer under Section 45 read with Section 47(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (ii) Whether the impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse?” 3. Sunair Hotels Ltd. was granted the rights to develop a hotel at Bangla Sahib Road by the New Delh...
Rakesh Kumar Goyal Vs. Nct of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
1. By the present petition the Petitioner challenges the order dated 15th January, 2008 summoning the Petitioner for offences under Sections 174/175 IPC and quashing of the criminal complaint No. 8/1 of 2008 titled as “Shri R.K. Chibber Vs. Rakesh Kumar Goyal” pending with the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that none of the summons allegedly issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act from 13th July, 2006 to 10th July, 2007 were issued by a person duly authorized by the Central Government in this behalf. The authorization for the first time in favour of a Gazetted officer of Customs was given by the Central Government on 20th February, 2008 and thus even if the Petitioner did not appear before the officer concerned pursuant to the summons issued, no offence under Sections 174/175 IPC is made out and thus the learned Trial Court erred in taking cognizance on the complaint filed...
Union of India and Others Vs. Vijay Mam and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
A.K. SIKRI, ACJ. 1. All these appeals, 24 in number, arise out of a common judgment and order dated 30th November, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of as many petitions. The said judgment is rendered in the writ petitions which were filed by the respondents herein. All these respondents are Kashmiri Pandits with their permanent residence in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. They were employees of the Central Government and most of them were posted in Kashmir. However, due to the turbulence in that State resulting in putting their lives in danger, they were transferred to Delhi. In fact, most of these respondents were representing the intelligence agencies, paramilitary and defence forces as well as the Government media and had become the prime target of militants. So much so, list of such persons who had to be targeted was published and circulated in the localities. Many family members and friends of such Government employees were killed and their properties destroyed f...
Ramesh Chhabra Vs. Chairman-cum-managing Director Delhi Transport Corp ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
A.K. SIKRI, ACJ. 1. In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the validity of surcharge of Re. 1/- collected by the Delhi Transport Corporation (Respondent No.1) from NCR commuters commuting in DTC Buses is challenged. As per the averments made in the petition, the DTC is levying surcharge of Re.1/- in addition to the normal fare and collecting the same from the passengers who travel in its buses and routes of the Delhi-Faridabad, Faridabad-Delhi, Faridabad-AIIMS, AIIMS- Faridabad. The buses which are running on the routes of Dhaula Kuan-Gurgaon and Gurgaon-Dhaula Kuan, the DTC is charging Rs.2/- extra alongwith actual fare from the passengers. 2. In order to find the basis of such charge, the petitioner had made an application under the Right to Information Act to the office of the Lt. Governor, Delhi raising following questions:- “1. Whether hike in DTC fares has got the approval, present or earlier from LG office. 2. Whether DTC has got the ...
Nhrc and Another Vs. Sheenu Saxen and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
V.K. JAIN, J. 1. The petitioner, National Human Right Commission (NHRC), vide its OM dated 16.7.2003, invited applications for appointment of 06 Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) on regular temporary basis. The respondents, amongst others were called pursuant to the applications submitted by them and were subjected to written examination and typing test. A panel of 22 successful candidates from general category and 05 candidates from OBC category was drawn up in the order of merit in February, 2004. Subsequently, temporary vacancies arose in NHRC on account of regular LDCs proceeding on deputation. Since, these were not regular vacancies, efforts were made to fill up these short-term vacancies on deputation basis, but, the selected candidates were not relieved by their parent departments. Therefore, 09 candidates, including the respondents in this writ petition, who had been included in the panel drawn in February, 2004 were offered appointment on ad-hoc basis. Subsequently, when regular v...
Pushkar Mal Verma Vs. State (Cbi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 CrPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 23.7.2011 of framing of charges against the petitioner along with other co-accused persons under Sections 120-B/420/467/468/471 IPC and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act. 2. The facts in brief are that during the year 1999-2000, the petitioner was posted as District Primary Education Officer at Mahendergarh when the Government of Haryana through its Department of Directorship of Education made appointment of 3206 JBT teachers in different districts. Earlier, the process of appointment was proposed to be conducted by Haryana Public Service Commission, but during the relevant period, this was transferred to the Department of Directorate of Primary Education. In pursuance thereto, District Level Selection Committees were formed and the petitioner was appointed as the Chairman of the Selection Committee of the District Committee of Mahendergarh. Th...
Alcatel-lucent India Ltd. Vs. Usha India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
A.K. SIKRI, ACJ. 1. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the action of the respondent Usha India Limited in making repeated references before the BIFR and appeals therefrom before the AAIFR, even when previous references made by the petitioner were rejected. The grievances of the petitioner is that it amounts to continuous and systematic abuse of process resorted to by Usha India limited with the sole motive of delaying and defeating the rights of its creditors. Usha has been filing repeated references before the BIFR and getting for itself protection of the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 which it is otherwise not entitled to. To highlight the purported mala fides and abuse on the part of the Usha, the petitioner traced the following events in its petition. 2. On 30.7.2002 Usha filed its first Reference before BIFR which was registered as Reference no. 117/2002, claiming losses of ` 1015.24 Crores. In just three months, the said Reference was r...
A.P. Moller And#8211; Maersk a/S and Another Vs. Maersk Mining and Exp ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral) I.A. No.11246/2012, I.A. No.11247/2012 and I.A. No.11248/2012 (u/S 151 CPC for exemption) These applications have been filed by the plaintiffs under Section 151 of CPC, seeking exemption from filing the original, fair typed copies of the dim documents and documents in legal size and translated copies of the international registration certificates at this stage. Heard. For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed and eight weeks time is granted to file the same. The applications are disposed of. CS(OS) 1787/2012 Let the plaint be registered as a suit. Additional affidavit and documents are taken on record. Issue summons to the defendant, on filing of process fee and registered AD cover within one week, returnable on 30.07.2012. I.A. No.11245/2012 (u/O XXXIX, R.1 and 2 CPC) 1. Issue notice for the date fixed. 2. In this application, the plaintiffs are seeking an injunction against the defendant from using the word MAERSK as part of its co...
U.S. Rajora Vs. C.K. Bedi (Deceased) Through Lrs and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
1. The challenge in these petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) is to two Awards dated 5th July 2006 of the sole Arbitrator in the disputes between the parties arising out of agreements entered into between them for development and construction of a building consisting of independent and self contained flats/apartments on a freehold plot of land admeasuring 1005 sq. yards at W-19, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi. 2. An agreement dated 28th September 1990 was entered into by Smt. C.K. Bedi with her real sister Smt. Gurdeep Kaur for the construction of a fourstoreyed building consisting of self contained residential flats/apartments on the said plot. On the basis of the aforesaid authority Smt. Gurdeep Kaur entered into an agreement dated 15th October 1990 with the Petitioner Shri U.S.Rajora for development and construction of the building consisting of independent and self contained flats/apartments according to modern liking, design ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »