Delhi Court September 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.
Universal Finance Traders Ltd. Vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Late Smt.Sudesh Madhok, the wife of respondent No.5 and mother of respondent No.6 had filed a suit praying for a decree in sum of Rs.1,31,07,607.00 alleging that respondent No.1, M/s.Lunar Diamonds Ltd., respondents No.2, M/s.Lunar Gold International Pvt. Ltd., respondent No.3, M/s.Lunar Finance Ltd., respondent No.4, M/s.Sunrise Securities Ltd. And the appellant were Public Limited Companies. In February 1996, respondent No.2 requested her to discount a Bill of Exchange in sum of Rs.1,03,84,000/- drawn on respondent No.1 for a consideration of Rs.1,00,00,000/- and she agreed. Simultaneously, respondent No.1 executed a demand promissory note in her favour in sum of Rs.1,03,84,000/- and respondent No.3 executed a deed of guarantee in her favour. Additionally, respondent No.3 executed and delivered a pledge agreement as also an irrevocable power of attorney in her favour pledging shares worth Rs.4 lakhs of respondent No.4 to her. Paying Rs.25 lakhs to her, respon...
Union of India and Another Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Order dated June 01, 2012 allowing OA No.495/2012 filed by the respondent has been questioned by the petitioners. 2. Continued suspension of the respondent has been quashed with a direction that the respondent be reinstated with legally admissible consequential benefits, and the latter direction would obviously mean that the respondent would be entitled to be paid wages for the work done when he joins and not that he would be entitled to the difference in wages receivable and the subsistence allowance paid during period of suspension, and to this extent the apprehensions expressed by the writ petitioners as if the writ petitioners have to pay back-wages is incorrect. 3. The respondent, a 1985 batch officer of the Indian Revenue Service was suspended as per order dated December 28, 1999 which was quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide order dated January 17, 2003 when OA No.783/2000 filed by the respondent was allowed, but with liberty granted to th...
Gurbachan Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs: “(i) quash and set aside the impugned transfer order dated 25.6.2012 (A-1) to the extent the applicant has been transferred out at the verge of retirement. (ii) quash and set aside the order dated 5th July, 2012. (iii) declare the action of respondents in transferring the applicant at hard station as illegal and arbitrary. (iv) allow the OA with exemplary cost.” 2. This is a matter of transfer from Delhi to Lakshadweep vide impugned orders dated 25.06.2012 whereby several DANIPS officers have been transferred, including the applicant whose name figures at serial number 12. Aggrieved by the order, the applicant filed OA No.2119/2012. Notice was issued to the respondents and fifteen days’ time was allowed to them to decide the representation of the applicant. Meanwhile, until deciding the representation, the impugned orders dated 25.06.2012, with regard to the applicant, were kept in abeyance. Vide o...
Nirmaljit Singh Narula Vs. Sh. Yashwant Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. 1. This order shall dispose of the application filed under order 39 Rule 1and 2 of CPC in the present suit, whereby the plaintiff is seeking adinterim injunction against the defendants for publishing defamatory content about the Plaintiff on their website. Before I proceed to decide the aforesaid application, It would be pertinent to give a brief resume of facts that led to the filing of the present suit by the plaintiff:- 2. As per the Plaintiff, Nirmaljit Singh Narula popularly known as “Nirmal Baba’is a highly revered spiritual guide, renowned worldwide for his spiritual discourses .The Plaintiff is also known for his healing powers, and regularly conducting assemblies called as “Samagams’. The preaching emphasize on the values of true, selfless prayer and devotion to one’s duties and guide his followers/devotees to abstain from, rather shun the path of “mantra”, “tantra” or “yantra”, or in other w...
Ashok Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. Oral: 1. The petitioner desires quashing of the communication dated October 04, 2011 wherein his representation for grant of Permanent Secondment in Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA) has been turned down. 2. The reason for the same being turned down is the opinion of the Director General Quality Assurance, Lt.Gen.V.K.Mehta (Now Retd.) that the petitioner, who is a serving officer in the Indian Army in the rank of Lt.Colonel, is as yet not fit for Permanent Secondment in DGQA. 3. Matter pertaining to record, since the assertion in the writ petition was that the initiating officer Brig.D.K.Joshi had rated the petitioner highly and so did the Reviewing Officer, Sh.U.V.Dasgupta, but since Lt.Gen.V.K.Mehta, the Accepting Officer, had a personal grudge against the petitioner and because he did not want the petitioner to be recommended for Permanent Secondment, was faced with a difficulty pertaining to the pen profiling of the petitioner by Brig.D.K.Joshi a...
Cit Vs. Hindustan Times
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The present common judgment arises out of an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 04.09.2009 in ITA 2158/Del/2003 and ITA 827/Del/2006. These two pertain to the Assessment Years 1999-00 and 2000-01. 2. The following questions of law arise for consideration: i. Did the Tribunal err in law in upholding the deduction towards provision for salary, Provident Fund etc not actually paid during the assessment year under consideration? ii. Did the Tribunal err in holding that the sum of Rs. 43,01,632/-, paid by the assessee as its share of the joint venture to insurance business, towards business capital and drafting expenses was deductible in its hands, as expenditure? iii. Did the Tribunal fall into error in holding that the sum of Rs. 5,76,975/-, paid to IMRB for market research on life insurance business in India, was a deductible expenditure? 3. The brief facts necessary to decide the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of printi...
Modern Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Bharat Bijlee Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
1. I.A. 2292 of 2000 is an application by the Defendant Bharat Bijlee Ltd. (‘BBL’) under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (‘1940 Act’) raising objections to the impugned Award dated 1st January 2000 of the sole Arbitrator in the disputes between the Plaintiff Modern Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter ‘the Society’) and BBL arising out of an order placed by the Society on BBL for supply of six lifts for the Society. 2. The offer made by BBL for supply of the six lifts was accepted by the Society on 30th December 1987 for the value of Rs. 20,88,450. It was subject to a price variation claim (‘PVC’). Payment was to be made prorate per lift as follows: 30% of contract value with the acceptance of the proposal. 60% of contract value plus PVC on material portion on receipt of advice from BBL that the materials are ready for dispatch. 10% of contract value plus balance PVC plus taxes and levies as applicable on c...
Bharti Cellular Limited Vs. Department of Tele-communicaitons
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
1. The Petitioner, Bharti Cellular limited (‘BCL’) [earlier known as Bharti Mobile Limited (‘BML’)], has in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the 1996 Act’) challenged an Award dated 20th December 2002 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator in the disputes between the Petitioner and the Respondent Department of Telecommunications (‘DOT’) arising out of a license agreement dated 26th December 1995 for provision of Cellular Mobile Telephone Service (‘CMTS’) in various telecom circles including Punjab. By the impugned Award the learned Arbitrator rejected the claim of BML for refund of the amount of license fee together with interest paid by it to the DOT subject to the finding that if the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (‘TDSAT’) or in any further appeal/further proceedings, it was finally held that BML was not liable to pay interest for the period ...
Mohd. Shakil @ Bhola and Others Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The appellants (hereafter referred to by their names, i.e. Mohd. Shakeel, Kamal Tyagi, Sunil and Devraj) are aggrieved by the judgment dated 15-11-2011, of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in SC No. 106/2011 whereby they were found guilty of the murder of Deepak Parashar (“the deceased”) and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/201/120B, IPC. The deceased, a lawyer was engaged by the appellants Mohd. Shakeel, Kamal Tyagi and Devraj to defend them in several cases. The prosecution had alleged that the deceased used to demand payment towards his fees from the appellants, which was the motive for murder; further, they suspected him of having divulged some information to one Kishan Solanki. The appellants, except Sunil, were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, and pay fine; Sunil was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and pay fine. 2. The prosecution alleged that on 17.03.2005 the deceased called Kamal Tyagi, demanding ...
Gurbachan Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs: (i) quash and set aside the impugned transfer order dated 25.6.2012 (A-1) to the extent the applicant has been transferred out at the verge of retirement. (ii) quash and set aside the order dated 5th July, 2012. (iii) declare the action of respondents in transferring the applicant at hard station as illegal and arbitrary. (iv) allow the OA with exemplary cost. 2. This is a matter of transfer from Delhi to Lakshadweep vide impugned orders dated 25.06.2012 whereby several DANIPS officers have been transferred, including the applicant whose name figures at serial number 12. Aggrieved by the order, the applicant filed OA No.2119/2012. Notice was issued to the respondents and fifteen days time was allowed to them to decide the representation of the applicant. Meanwhile, until deciding the representation, the impugned orders dated 25.06.2012, with regard to the applicant, were kept in abeyance. Vide order dated 5.07.2012,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »