Delhi Court April 2013 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.
Girish Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :10. h April, 2013 DECIDED ON :25. h April, 2013 + CRL.A. 157/2004 GIRISH Through : versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Ravi Qazi, Advocate. ..... Respondent Ms.Fizani Husain, APP. AND + CRL.A. 168/2004 POORAN CHAND Through : versus STATE Through: CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG ..... Appellant Mr.Shekh Israr Ahmed, Advocate. ..... Respondent Ms.Fizani Husain, APP. S.P.GARG, J.1. Pooran Chand, Girish and Titu @ George were arrested and sent for trial in case FIR No.607/1992 registered at Police Station Ambedkar Nagar on the allegations that on 28.11.1992 at about 07.00 P.M. near Madangir market, they abducted X (assumed name) aged twenty years, put her in a car and wrongfully confined her in it. She was taken to a deserted place near Pushp Vihar and at about 11.30 P.M. Pooran Chand committed rape upon her. All the three accused persons were charge-sheeted under Sections 342/354/376(2)(g)/120-B IPC. Vide order dated ...
Ex. Sub. Rajender Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:21. 03.2013 Decided on:25. 04.2013 + W.P.(C) 432/2013 EX. SUB. RAJENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Sh. D.V.S. Yadav, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Sh. Saqib, Advocate, for Resp. Nos. 1 and 2. Ms. Anjali Vohra, Advocate, for Resp. No.3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The controversy in the present writ petition is the entitlement of the petitioner to benefits of the Army Group Insurance Fund. The respondents deny it to him on the ground that he proceeded on discharge from service after completion of term of engagement.2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of this judgment are that the petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 17.03.1982. It is not in dispute that he served, during his military career, in several areas. He was in the field area in Kargil during 2003-2005. Whilst in exercise in Lathi (f...
Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs. Naresh Arora and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2013
13 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1190/2012 HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Dhir, Advocate. versus NARESH ARORA & ORS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Arpit Batra, Advocate for defendants No.1 and 3. Mr. Mohan Vidhani, Advocate with Mr. Rahul Vidhani, Advocate for defendants No.2 and 4. Date of Decision:25. h April, 2013. % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J (Oral): I.A. 2261/2013 in CS(OS) 1190/2012 Present application has been filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC for deletion of defendants No.1 and 3. It is stated that the defendants No.1 and 3/applicants are not carrying out any alleged activities as stated in the plaint. Learned counsel for defendants No.1 and 3/applicants states that they are property brokers and are not involved in the business of manufacture of any product. As admittedly, there are averments in the plaint against all the defendants...
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. Vs. Tulip Telecom Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CCP (Co.) No. 3 of 2013 in CO.PET. No. 395 of 2012 AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajendra Barot and Mr. Gaurav Kothari, Advocates. versus TULIP TELECOM LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. G.L. Rawal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kuljeet Rawal and Mr. Himanshu Singh, Advocates with Mr. H.S. Bedi, MD in person. AND CO.PET. No. 395 of 2012 & CO. APPL Nos. 454&455 of 2013 AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajendra Barot and Mr. Gaurav Kothari, Advocates. versus TULIP TELECOM LTD. Through: ..... Respondent Mr. G.L. Rawal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kuljeet Rawal and Mr. Himanshu Singh, Advocates with Mr. H.S. Bedi, MD in person. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER 25 04.2013 1. Co. Pet. No. 395 of 2012 was filed by the Petitioner, Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. (AN...
Ramesh Patel @ Rahul Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 282/2011 & Crl. M.B. 188/2013 Reserved on:13. h February, 2013 Decided on:25. h April, 2012 % RAMESH PATEL @ RAHUL Through: versus STATE Through: ..... Appellant Mr. B.L. Goswami, Advocate. ..... Respondent Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP with SI Anil Kumar, PS Sangam Vihar, Delhi. Coram: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA 1 By the present petition the Appellant impugns the judgment dated 6th January, 2011 whereby the Appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 376/506 IPC and the order on sentence dated 11 th January, 2011 whereby he was directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months and Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for offence under Section 506 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months.2...
Sushoban Luthra and anr. Vs. Major Ravindra Mohan Kapur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on :18. h April, 2013 Judgment pronounced on:25. h April, 2013 % + FAO(OS) 54/2012 SUSHOBAN LUTHRA & ANR. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Rajiv Bahl, Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Aggarwal, Adv. versus MAJOR RAVINDRA MOHAN KAPUR & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Anand, Advocate with Ms. Anubha Surana, Advocate CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.1. This is an appeal arising out of judgment dated 12.7.2011. By the impugned judgment, the objections filed by the appellants to the probate petition filed by the respondents in respect of the Will dated 25.10.2000 executed by late Smt. Shakuntala Kapur have been dismissed and the probate has been granted of the said Will. The appellants herein are the children of the pre-deceased daughter of late Smt. Shakuntala Kapur and the respondents (the probate petitioners) are the sons of late Smt. Shakuntala Kapur.2. The le...
interads Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sivalik Cellulose Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CO. PET. No. 5 of 1985 Reserved on: April 11, 2013 Decision on: April 25, 2013 INTERADS ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Vandana Bhatnagar and Ms. Surbhi Sharma, Advocates for Mr. Inder P. Choudhrie/Applicant in CA 71.of 2006 versus SIVALIK CELLULOSE LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ashok Sagar, Advocate for Hindustan Lever Limited. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt and Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocates for IDBI. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT 25 04.2013 Co. Appl. No. 714 o1. This is an application by Mr. Inder P. Choudhrie, former Director of Sivalik Cellulose Limited (SCL) seeking, inter alia, various directions to Hindustan Lever Limited (HLL) to honour all the liabilities and commitments which arose during the period which SCL was under its management and control.2. The background to the present application is that SCL was promoted by the Applicant, Mr. Inder P. Choudhrie, in June 1975. A plant for the manufacture of writing and printi...
Gurudas Amerkar and Another Vs. Goa Coastal Zone Mangement Authority T ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2013
Oral Judgment: This Appeal is directed against order dated 21.12.2012 purportedly passed by theRespondent No. 1 (Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority) (for short, GCZMA). 2. The main contention raised by the Appellants is that the impugned order could not have been passed by only five (5) Members of the Authority in as much as the quorum as fixed under the Rule was not available. The contention of the Appellants is that the GCZMA consists of twelve(12) Members and presence of at least eight(8) Members is compulsorily required to render any definitive and legally binding decision. Still, however, the GCZMA could not ensure presence of eight(8) Members as required under the relevant provision. The decision rendered by only five(5) Members is invalid because of non-availability of required quorum. Thus, the impugned decision is liable to be quashed. 3. The Respondents, however, deny the contention of the Appellant on the ground that the quorum was not fixed under therelevant Rules. They ...
Satpal Singh and Others Vs. Municipal Council Gardhiwala Through Its E ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2013
The Applicants filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8783/2009 in the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, being Public Interest Litigation, mainly seeking direction to Respondents for shifting of Hada Rori (a place where dead animals carcasses, hide and remains are dumped) to a suitable place and further to implement provisions of the Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 (in short MSW Rules). The Writ Petition has been transferred to this Tribunal in keeping with directions of the Apex Court in WP (C) No. 50/1998 titled as Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.. The Writ Petition has been converted in the form of an Application as required under the National Green Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011. 2. Since the pleadings were filed before the Honble High Court, there was no need to file pleadings afresh. It is only by way of clarification that the Executive Officer of Municipal Council, Gardhiwala, ...
Rural Electrification Corp Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-(Ltu) an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:23. 04.2013 WP (C) 7943/2011 RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORP LTD Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(LTU) AND ANOTHER Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr M. S. Syali, Sr Advocate with Mr Satyen Sethi, Mr Mayank Nagi and Mr A. T. Panda For the Respondents : Mr Kiran Babu CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition pertains to the assessment year 2004-05. It is directed against the notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) issued on 21.03.2011, whereby the assessment of the petitioner is sought to be reopened. The purported reasons for believing that income had escaped assessment are as under:11. Reasons for the belief that income has escaped assessment.1. In this case assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 24.2.2005 at an income of Rs...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »