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.
Neeraj Kumar and Others Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. 1. The appellants appeal against a judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated 2-12-2009 in SC No. 41/01 whereby they were convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, with other sentences. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.10.2001 at about 07:30 PM, DD No. 26 was recorded regarding information received from HC Jagdish about a stabbing incident at Shahabad Kankarkhera. Again DD No.29 was recorded regarding admission of one Vijender to Bhagawan Mahavir Hospital with the history of stabbing. Thereafter at about 08:15 PM DD No.32 was recorded on receipt of the information from Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital regarding death of injured Vijender. On receipt of this, SI Umed Singh (PW-17) with Ct. Bhim Singh (PW-6) went to the hospital and collected the MLC of deceased Vijender. PW-17 Umed Singh recorded the statement of the brother of the deceased, Ravinder Singh (PW-1), whom he ...
indraprastha Gas Ltd. Vs. Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. The petition impugns, i) the order dated 9th April, 2012 of the respondent no. 1 Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (hereinafter called “Board”); ii) the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Determination of Network Tariff for City or Local Natural Gas Distribution Networks and Compression Charge for CNG) Regulations, 2008 (hereinafter called “Tariff Regulations”); iii) Regulation 17(5) of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Authorizing Entities to Lay, Build, Operate or Expand City or Local Natural Gas Distribution Networks) Regulations, 2008 (hereinafter called “Network Regulations”); iv) Regulation 7 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Code of Practice for Quality of Service for City or Local Natural Gas Distribution Networks) Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter called “Quality Regulations”); v) Scheme for Consumer Welfare Fund 2011; and, vi) alternatively in the event of ...
Suresh Shokeen Vs. Babli
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
(ORAL) C.M. No.10603/2012 (Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. Application stands disposed of RFA No.251/2012 and C.M. No.10602/2012 (stay) 1. Ingenuity of persons who take loans and thereafter use every conceivable means to dispute and deny return of loans is replete in various litigations in this country. The present appeal is one such litigation. 2. What is urged on behalf of the appellant/defendant that the impugned judgment and decree passed in the suit filed under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) by dismissing leave to defend application is liable to be set aside as the suit was not maintainable under Order 37 CPC inasmuch as the cheque in question was not issued by the appellant/defendant. This argument however misses out a vital aspect of law that consideration payable under a contract need not flow only between parties to a contract. 3. The facts of the case are that admittedly the appellant/defendant was given loan by respondent/plaint...
Rahuljee and Company Pvt. Ltd Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal-i and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
A.K. SIKRI (Acting Chief Justice) 1. The appeal of the review petitioner was decided by this Bench vide judgment dated 08.8.2011. In the very first paragraph, disallowance, which was made by the Assessing Officer, was taken note of. The same are as under: “(i) Claim for damages by the customer:`14,04,483/-. (ii) Payment made to Mr. Sunil Kumar :`2,00,000/-. (iii) Expenses estimated to have been incurred:`80,000/- (iv) Foreign Travel of Sh. Pawan Goel :`17,122/- (v) Disallowance of `16,088/- u/s 40A (3) (vi) Interest u/s 217 be consequently reduced.” 2. In paragraph 2 of the judgment, it was pointed out by this Court that the learned counsel for the assessee/appellant confined his grievance only to disallowance of payment of `2,00,000/- made to one Mr. Sunil Kumar. This issue has been considered and decided in favour of the appellant/assessee holding that there was sufficient evidence to prove the expenditure of `2,00,000/- by the assessee. 3. In this Review Petition, learn...
Shanti Swarup Gupta and Anothrs Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
A.K. SIKRI (Acting Chief Justice) 1. All the petitioners, 37 in number, were the employees of Rajya Sabha Secretariat. They are aggrieved by the determination of their seniority qua private respondents in this writ petition, viz., respondent Nos.6 to 91 as well as consequential promotion given to those respondents prior to the petitioners. The petition was filed at the time when they were still working in the Rajya Sabha, though during the pendency of the petition, all have retired. It is stated in the petition that under Article 98(2) of the Constitution of India, the Parliament is yet to enact a legislation concerning the recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed in Rajya Sabha Secretariat. It is pointed out that till 1957, the Legislative Assembly Department (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1929, were applicable to the employees of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat. Thereafter, the Rajya Sabha Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1957 were framed ...
The Commissioner of Income Tax V Vs. Nagesh Knitwears P. Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
SANJIV KHANNA, J. 1.Revenue has preferred these appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) in which the issue and contention which requires examination is whether the premium received on sale of export quota is covered by Section 28(iiia) to 28(iiic) and accordingly, has to be included while computing the deduction as per the provisos to sub-Section (3) of Section 80HHC of the Act. 2. The assessees and the assessment year involved are different and we only record that the assessees have succeeded in all cases before the tribunal. As an identical or similar legal issues and question of law arise for our consideration, the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. Before we examine facts of each individual cases, we deem it appropriate to refer to and examine the legal position. 3. Section 28 (iiia) to 28 (iiie) read as under: “28. Profits and gains of business or profession.-The following income shall be chargeable to income tax under t...
Registrar of Companies and Others Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg and Anothe ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
VIPIN SANGHI, J. 1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana (ROC) and its CPIOs Sh. Raj Kumar Shah and Sh. Atma Shah to assail two similar orders dated 14.07.2009 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) in complaint case Nos. CIC/SG/C/2009/000702 and CIC/SG/C/2009/000753. By these similar orders, the appeals preferred by the same respondent- querist were allowed, rejecting the defence of the petitioners founded upon Section 610 of the Companies Act, 1956, and it was directed that the complete information sought by the respondent-querist in his two applications under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) be provided to him before 25.07.2009. The CIC has also directed issuance of show-cause notice to the petitioner-PIOs under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act asking them to show-cause as to why penalty should not be imposed upon them for not furnishing information as sought by the querist within thirty days. 2. The quer...
Lt.Col. Sanjay Kashyap Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
1. The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari for the quashing of order dated 10th September, 2007 passed by the Ministry of Defence rejecting the statutory complaint of the petitioner in the light of his career profile, relevant records and analysis/recommendations of the Army Headquarters and holding that the petitioner had not been empanelled for promotion to the rank of Colonel on account of his overall profile and comparative merit, and also the order dated 20th October, 2009 passed by the Principal Bench, Armed Force Tribunal in T.A.No.122/2009, titled as “Lt.Col. Sanjay Kashyap, v. Union of India and Ors.” dismissing his original petition seeking the setting aside of the order of the Ministry of Defence dated 10th September, 2007 holding that it was for the Selection Committee to assess and give the appropriate weightage to the conflicting ACRs of the petitioner given by the Initiating Officer and another by the Reviewing Officer and the remarks given by SRO and ...
Sh. Raj Kumar M.E.-i Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
ANIL KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner has sought in the present writ petition records of the Summary Court Proceedings conducted by the Commanding Officer on 16th September, 1995. He has also sought that the punishment imposed on the petitioner of demotion to the first rank be quashed and he be restored to his original rank with all consequential benefits such as payment of entire difference of salary, emoluments, etc. and to restore his rank to the other time scale promotion which the petitioner would have earned in the absence of the Court of Inquiry being initiated against him. The petitioner has also claimed all the salaries of his eligible rank and emolument be paid to him in the facts and circumstances. 2. Brief relevant facts to comprehend the controversies are that the petitioner joined the Navy on 10th July, 1981 as a Metric Entry Recruit (MER). He was posted on various ships on various dates. For an incident that occurred on 29th October, 1994, a signal dated 2nd August, 1995 was...
Col S.K. JaIn Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
1. The OA No.445/2010 was filed in the Armed Forces Tribunal on 27.07.2010. 2. Vide this OA the applicant has sought quashing and setting aside of the findings and sentence of the General Court Martial (GCM) as also the orders of rejection in the Pre-Confirmation petition by GOC-in-C, Northern Command vide order dated 04.06.2009. The applicant has also prayed for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was posted as the Commandant of Northern Command Vehicle Depot in 2006. On 18.12.2008, he was tried by a GCM which concluded on 26.03.2009. The applicant was tried for the following three charges:- (a) First Charge: Under Army Act Section 69, Committing a civil offence, that is to say criminal misconduct contrary to Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 (JandK) (Act No.XIII of 2006 Samvat). In that he, while performing the duties of Commandant, Northern Command Vehicle Depot, on 27.09.2008 the applicant abus...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »