Delhi Court August 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.
Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
1. The petitioner Sajjan Kumar is facing trial for committing the offence punishable under Sections 109 r/w 147/148/149/153 - A/295/302/396/427/486/449/505 IPC and 201 IPC in case RC No.24/2005 registered on the directions of Government of India vide D.O. No.U-13018/5/2005 dated 24.10.2005 to investigate/reinvestigate the case FIR No.416/84, PS Delhi Cantt, New Delhi. 2. In the FIR and the chargesheet filed against the petitioner, apart from other material, the prosecution relied on the affidavits Ex.PW1/A and B filed by Smt. Jagdish Kaur (PW-1) before Justice Ranganathan Commission and Justice Nanavati Commission and the statement Ex.PW1/C made before Justice Nanavati Commission. 3. To prove the charge, the prosecution led evidence. During examination-in-chief of PW-1 Smt.Jagdish Kaur, she proved the two affidavits as Ex.PW1/A and B as well as statement made before Justice Nanavati Commission as Ex.PW1/C. Cross examination of PW-1 Smt.Jagdish Kaur by accused Balwan Khokhar and Krishan...
M/S. Shori Lal Chemicals and Another Vs. Sunita Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. Vide impugned order dated April 26, 2012, the learned Single Judge has dismissed IA No.9160/2011 by which application the appellants sought leave to defend, and as a consequence, suit filed by the respondent under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure has been decreed in sum of Rs.56,57,200/- together with interest @18% per annum from the date of decree till realization. Costs have also been awarded against the appellant. Needless to state, decree is in favour of the respondent. 2. Case pleaded by the respondent was that she was carrying on business as the sole proprietor of M/s.Sandeep Chemicals Corporation, and was trading in dyes and chemicals. As per her, Vijay Aggarwal (appellant No.2) was carrying on business under the name „M/s.Shori Lal Chemicals’(appellant No.1), as the sole proprietor thereof. She pleaded having sold chemicals and dyes to the firm in sum of Rs.49,19,200/- and for which she claimed to have raised two invoices in sum o...
Costa and Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
VIPIN SANGHI, J. 1. The petitioner assails the order dated 05.09.2011 passed by the learned Intellectual Property Appellate Board (the Appellate Board) in MP No.171/2008 in ORA/105/2007/TM/DEL. By this order, the Appellate Board has allowed the respondent No.3’s application to seek transfer of the rectification application preferred by it under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (the Act) before the Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, (the Registrar), to the Appellate Board. Consequently, the rectification application No.BOM-183681 filed by the respondent No. 3 before the Registrar has been transferred to the Appellate Board from the stage at which it then stood. The Appellate Board has further directed that the two matters, i.e. ORA/105/2007/TM/DEL (rectification application preferred by the petitioner under Section 57 of the Act before the Appellate Board), and the transferred rectification application of the respondent No. 3 shall be listed together at Circuit Bench sittin...
Ram Gopal and Others Vs. Ram Charan Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
SANJIV KHANNA, J. The present intra court appeal impugns order dated 30th August, 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in Execution Petition No. 227/2010. The impugned order allows the execution petition, which was filed by the respondent herein Ram Charan Aggarwal and directs the appellants herein Ram Gopal, Prem Lata and Ram Kishan to execute a conveyance deed in favour of the Respondents in respect of property bearing No.1375, Katra Lehswan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. Some directions have also been given to ensure compliance of the said order. 2. Ram Gopal and Ram Charan Aggarwal are brothers being sons of late Ganeshi Lal and Kasturi Devi. The father and the two sons on or about in 1962 had commenced business in partnership under the name and style of Lalji Mal Tika Ram with all the three having equal share. Ganeshi Lal passed away in 1981. Disputes arose between the two sons and their families, resulting in multifarious litigation. Reference, for the purpose of decision of the prese...
Mrs. Anil Dogra Vs. Secretary (Labour) and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
P.K. BHASIN, J. The petitioner-workman has in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenged the award dated 10.07.2007 of the Labour Court whereby her dismissal from service by her employer, the respondent no.2 herein, had been held to be legal as well as justified. 2. The petitioner-workman was employed with the respondent no.2 Company, The Statesman Limited, since 1972 in the advertising department as a receptionist-cum- typist. She was dismissed from service in the year 1997 after she was found guilty of the following charges of misconduct which had been levelled against her vide charge sheet dated 12.03.1994:- “It has been noticed that you habitually come late to office and not put the correct time of your arrival inspite of being told to this effect a number of times. You also sign over and above the red mark put against your name and when you come late, even then, you put your arrival time as 10.00 a.m. intentionally showing thereby that you c...
Sanjay Vs. Suresh Chand and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of Rs.2,04,140/- awarded in favour of the Appellant for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 31.12.1992. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) held that the Respondent Insurance Company successfully proved the breach of the policy and thus exonerated it of its liability and made Respondents No.1 and 2, the driver and owner of the vehicle liable to pay the compensation. 2. In the absence of any Cross-Appeal by the owner driver or the insurer, the finding on negligence has attained finality. 3. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant: (i) As per the disability certificate Ex.P-70, the Appellant was declared to be disabled to the extent of less than 40%, yet considering the injury the Appellant is disabled to work for whole life. The Claims Tribunal failed to award any compensation towards loss of earning capacity. (ii) A consolidated sum of...
M/S. National Steel Ind. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Bhiwani Cold Rolling Mills Ltd. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
Valmiki J. Metha, J Oral: 1. This suit being CS(OS) No.176/1997 has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.24,57,062/- against two defendants. The first defendant-company was the buyer of goods being H.R.coils from the plaintiff. Defendant no.2 is the banker which issued the letter of credit through which payment was to be made for the goods sold by the plaintiff to the defendant no.1. 2. The case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint is that the plaintiff agreed to sell 17 H.R.Coils weighing 180.340 Metric Tonnes (MTs) to the defendant no.1, and for payment of which, the defendant no.1 was to open an irrevocable letter of credit besides providing a cheque as collateral security. The defendant no.1 opened an irrevocable letter of credit with the defendant no.2-bank dated 12.4.1993. There is an amendment to this letter of credit issued on 4.5.1993 for extending the period for enforcing the letter of credit from 15 days to 30 days from the date of dispatch/shipment of the goo...
M/S. S.N. Mohanty and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J 1. These writ petitions raise common issues and are, therefore, being dealt with together. We shall, however, be referring to the facts of WP(C) No.2025/2012 (M/s S.N. Mohanty and Another v. Union of India and Another) for the sake of convenience. Furthermore, we shall be considering the facts insofar as the petitioner No.1 in that writ petition, namely, M/s S.N. Mohanty, is concerned. 2. The prayers made are, inter alia, as under:- "(a) Declare that the notification dated 4th April 2011 shall not be applicable to mining projects / units which already possess valid and subsisting Environmental Clearances (EC); (b) In the alternative to prayer (a), issue an appropriate writ order quashing the Notification SO No.695(E) dated 4th April, 2011 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India insofar that it seeks to substitute Column 5 of Item 1(a) of Notification SO No.533(3) dated 14th September, 2006.” 3. As can be seen from the prayers i...
Batliboi Vs. Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
IndermeetKaur, J. Oral: 1. This is a petition under Section 391 read with Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. The company M/s Mideast Integrated Steel Limited (MISL) had various winding up petitions filed against it. In Company Petition No. 337/1996 filed by the petitioning creditor Batliboi Limited, the company was provisionally wound up on 19.02.2002. 3. During the pendency of the winding up petition, on 21.09.2004 a scheme of arrangement was propounded by the promoters/Ex-directors of the company; the proposal and scheme was for a settlement between the company and all its creditors. In terms thereof, on the same date a meeting of the unsecured creditors was ordered for 15.01.2005 which was finally held on 02.03.2005. The scheme was approved by the requisite majority of the creditors. The report of the Chairperson had noted that 33 unsecured creditors participated and voted in the scheme. The representative of IPICOL (secured creditor) was present; he did not want to be cover...
Daya Shankar Ojha Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
Manmohan Singh, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to remove the disparity between General Reserve Engineer Force (hereinafter referred as GREF) Personnel and army personnel Posted in GREF. 2. The facts leading up to filing of the present petition can be enunciated as under: a) The petitioner claims to be serving in GREF since 25th February, 1964. b) The petitioner first explained the origin of GREF in the writ petition by placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of AIR 1983 SC 658, R.Viswan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., wherein there is an extensive discussion as to how GREF emerged as a force connected with the works of army personnel and what are the functions assigned to GREF as a force. It is stated that in the case of R.Viswan‟s case (supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court declared that GREF is an integral part o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »