Delhi Court July 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.
Parmeshwar Prasad (Since Deceased) Lord Northbrook and Others Vs. Stat ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-2012
V.K. SHALI, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of the Probate Petition filed by the petitioners under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of probate on the basis of the Will dated 30.10.1985 read with Codicil dated 7.11.1985. This petition was initiated almost 25 years back and more than thirty Judges had an occasion to deal with the matter. Though ideally the petition ought to have been decided within a period of three to four years or so but there are various factors which have caused the delay. Final delay has been on account of the voluminous record, some of which was in a very bad condition. 2. Any how, briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Late Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh of Khetri (deceased/testator) had very high credentials. He was a Bar at law from England, a member of the Constituent Assembly, a Rajya Sabha Member and also Ambassador to Laos and thus, a highly educated person. He died on 28.1.1987 as a childless widower and at that time, he was a ...
Balwan and Another Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. Vide impugned judgment dated May 18, 1999, the appellants (brothers) have been convicted for having murdered deceased “Vijay”and for having attempted to murder “Ashok Kumar”(brother of Vijay) and for the former offence have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and for the latter to undergo RI for 3 years. Whereas appellant Vijender @ Balli has been held to be the principal offender, appellant Balwan has been convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC. 2. In a nutshell, the case set up by the prosecution against the appellants (as emerging from the testimonies of the police officials and other witnesses associated with the investigation of the present case) was that on 17.07.1996 at about 09.45 P.M. HC Ram Pal, Duty Officer at PS Jahangir Puri, recorded DD entry No.53B Ex.PW-1/A, to the effect that the Police Control Room had informed that a quarrel had taken place in the street where house bearing Municipal No.J-500, Jahangir Pu...
M.S. Frank Vs. Delhi University and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-2012
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. 1. The present writ petition challenges the appointment of respondent No.5 to the post of Principal of the St. Stephen’s College, Delhi, respondent No.3 herein. The petitioner who at the time of filing the writ petition was the Vice Principal of the respondent No.3 seeks issuance of a writ of quo warranto directing respondent No.1, Delhi University, not to recognize and approve the qualification of respondent No.5. The petitioner also seeks for a declaration that Ph.D. for the post of Principal has to be in a “relevant subject”. Although the petition also seeks a declaration that the Ph.D. degree of respondent No.5 is not valid, no averment with regard to the said plea has been made in the main body of the writ petition and as such the said prayer is not being considered for grant hereinbelow. 2. The broad contours of the petitioner’s case and the facts germane for the disposal of the instant petition are as follows:- (i) The respondent No....
Four Seasons Energy Ventures Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Nct of ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. 1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for the reasons that the said compliant is not maintainable as the cheque in question, presented and was dishonoured, was issued towards Security and not towards any lawful outstanding debt or dues. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 2 entered into an agreement dated 19.02.2010, in respect of supply of Iron-ore to one M/s Glencore International A.G., a company in Switzerland. As per the agreed terms, the petitioners with a covering letter, contemporaneously executed three documents in favour of respondent No. 2, wherein, it was specifically mentioned that the three documents were being executed by the petitioners as Security for Mobilisation Advance. The details of the three documents executed by the petitioners are as under:- A Promissor...
Parvesh Rani and Others Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. Enrolled as a Constable with Border Security Force, deceased Chandervir was attached with E Coy of the 18th Bn. which in the year 2004 was deployed at Border Out Post Tarakpur, North Tripura. 2. On September 24, 2004, Chandervir was on operational duty at the Out Post and thus was issued a Self Loading Rifle and a magazine containing 50 bullets. He was to patrol the Line of Control assigned to him at the Border Out Post. Ct.Sube Singh and Ct.B.N.Hazara were the two other colleagues of Chandervir who were on duty at the Border Out Post. As per practice, the three had to individually and separately patrol different segments of the border which were assigned to them. At around 12:05 PM, when the duty time was over and as Ct.Sube Singh and Ct.B.N.Hazara were on the way back to the company headquarters, there was a sound of gun fire and a civilian named Girija Kumar Das rushed to the place from where the sound of gun fire was heard and saw Chandervir lying inj...
Rajesh Tyagi Vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. 1. Vide the instant Appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 13.02.2004, whereby the appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 365/395 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The appellant has also assailed the order on sentence dated 17.02.2004, whereby he was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment, he shall further undergo SI for one year for the offence under Section 365 of Indian Penal Code. He is further sentenced to undergo RI for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment, he shall further undergo SI for one year for the offence under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. also extended to the appellant. 4. Brief facts of the prosecution are that on 17.03.1997, one Suresh Chand Arora was travelling in his FIAT Car beari...
Ogilvy and Mather Pvt. Ltd and Another Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-2012
1. Petitioner No.1 Ogilvy and Mather Pvt. Ltd. (‘OandM’) and Petitioner No.2 Hindustan Thompson Associates Ltd. (‘HTA’) have filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) seeking the setting aside of an order dated 8th September 2007 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator rejecting their application under Section 33 of the Act for an additional Award in respect of one item of claim that was omitted/rejected in Para Nos.11 to 19 of the Award dated 2nd June 2007. The said claim related to “short payment of space bills for insertions in ‘The Statesman’ and ‘Anand Bazar Patrika’ (‘ABP’)” newspapers in the sum of Rs.23,82,620 together with interest thereon. Background Facts 2. The Petitioners state that they are advertising companies whose services were engaged by the Respondent Directorate of Income Tax (‘DIT’) in the Ministry of Finance,...
Ex. Subedar Jaibir Singh Vs. Chief of Army Staff and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-2012
S.S. Dhillon, Member 1. This petition has been filed by the Petitioner wherein he seeks quashing of the Summary General Court Marital (SGCM) proceedings of 12th April 2007 wherein he was sentenced to be dismissed from service and to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. He also seeks quashing of the Chief of Army Staff rejection order of 27th January 2009 wherein his petition under Section 164(2) of the Army Act was rejected by the Chief of Army Staff. This petition was filed in the Honble Delhi High Court and has been transferred to this Tribunal after its formation. 2. The Petitioner was enrolled in the Army as a Sepoy on 28th May 1983 in the regiment of Artillery. By his hard work and dedication he was promoted from time to time and had risen to the rank of Subedar. The incident for which disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him occurred when the Petitioner was posted to 28 Rashtriya Rifles in Jammu and Kashmir, wherein he was charged for an offence under Sections 34 (c...
Ranutrol Instrumentation Ltd Vs. C.C.E., Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
Per Mr. Rakesh Kumar (Oral): 1 The appellant are engaged in the manufacture of electrical equipment chargeable to central excise duty under Chapter 85 and 90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were availing cenvat credit of central excise duty paid on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of their final product. During the period prior to 1.4.97, they were paying duty at concessional rate under an exemption Notification and were availing input duty credit. With effect from 1.4.97, they opted to avail the benefit of Notification No.16/97-CE under which clearances upto certain value were fully exempt from duty. At the time of switching over to full duty exemption w.e.f. 1.4.97, they had certain stock of inputs in respect of which cenvat credit to the extent of Rs.7,36,345/- had been availed . However, they did not reverse the cenvat credit in respect of these inputs and the same were subseq...
C.C.E Vs. Laxmi Oils and Vanaspati P. Ltd Saurabh Gupta, Director
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
Per Mr. Justice Ajit Bharihoke (Oral): 1. Vide this order we propose to dispose of two applications for condonation of delay of one year seven months in filing of appeals by the Department against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 29.3.2010 whereby he accepted the appeals respectively filed by M/s Laxmi Oils and Vanapati P. Ltd. and Shri Saurabh Gupta, Director of the said company. 2. The cause shown for delay in filing of above appeals by the Department is that the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) following the ratio of the judgment of the Tribunal in the matter of CCE, Hyderabad vs. Priyanka Refineries Ltd. reported in 2010 (249) E.L.T. 70 (Tri. Bang.), it is alleged in the applications that the department had preferred civil appeals No. 218-220 of 2010 against the judgment of the Tribunal in CCE, Hyderabad vs. Priyanka Refineries Ltd. (supra), the SLP, however, was dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court on 7th of January 201...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »