Delhi Court July 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.
Dilip K Bandopadhyay Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:17. h May, 2013 Judgment delivered on:4. h July, 2013 % + CRL.M.C. 3999/2011 DILIP K BANDOPADHYAY ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukul Talwar and Mr. Sradhananda Mahapatra, Advocates. Versus STATE & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, Advocate for Respondent No.2. AND + CRL.M.C. 4037/2011 DR. B P JOSHI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukul Talwar and Mr. Sradhananda Mahapatra, Advocates. Versus STATE & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, Advocate for Respondent No.2. AND + CRL.M.C. 4038/2011 DR.NITIN MALIK Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Mukul Talwar and Mr. Sradhananda Mahapatra, Advocates. Versus STATE & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, Advocate for Respondent No.2. AND + CRL.M.C. 4039/2011 AJAY GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukul Talwar and Mr. Sradhananda Mahapatra, Advocates. Versus STATE & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, Advocate for Respondent No...
S.N. Sharma and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on July 01, 2013 Judgment Delivered on July 04, 2013 + W.P.(C) 6504/2011 S.N.SHARMA AND ANR. ..... Petitioners Represented by: Ms.Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr.R.N Singh and Ms.Sahila Lamba, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Ali Hasan Naqvi and Mr.M.P Singh, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. Order dated February 18, 2011 dismissing O.A No.247/2010 filed by the petitioners as also the order dated March 15, 2011 dismissing R.A No.61/2011 are under challenge in the instant writ petition.2. The brief facts are that pursuant to the recommendations of the 3rd Central Pay Commission, the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India issued a circular dated May 28, 1986 whereunder it introduced Flexible Complementing scheme in the scientific organizations. This scheme provided for in situ promotion for ...
Dharampal Vs. State of Nct Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 37/2003 and Crl. M.A. No. 178/2003 Reserved on:30. h April, 2013 Decided on:4. h July, 2013 % DHARAMPAL Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Jayant K. Sud and Mr. Ujas Kumar, Advocates with Appellant in person. versus STATE OF NCT DELHI Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for the State with SI Rajeev Kumar, PS Hazrat Nizamuddin, Delhi. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA 1 By the present appeal the Appellant lays a challenge to the judgment dated 23rd December, 2002 whereby he has been convicted for offences punishable under Section 304B/498A IPC and the order on sentence dated 24th December, 2002 whereby he has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for offence under Section 304B IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for offence under Section 498A IPC.2. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that on similar evidence the mother of the Appellant was discharged by ...
Jindal Steel and Power Limited Vs. N.S. Atwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:4. h July, 2013 % + CS(OS) 713/2010 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Pinaki Misra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Atul Shanker Mathur, Ms. Shruti Verma, Mr. Aseem Chaturvedi and Mr. Abnisaar Bairagi, Advs. Versus N.S. ATWAL Through: ..... Defendant Mr. Rajshekhar Rao and Mr. Adit S. Pujari, Advs. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J IA No.12936/2011 (of the defendant for leave to defend) 1. The plaintiff has sued under Order 37 of the CPC for recovery of principal sum of Rs.2,98,39,060/- along with interest at the agreed rate of 10% per annum accrued thereon with effect from April, 2007 to March, 2008 and thereafter @ 12% per annum from April, 2008 till institution of this suit in February, 2010 i.e. total Rs.4,00,44,341.20p, pleading: (i) that the defendant is the sole proprietor of M/s Guru Mehar Construction; (ii) that in December, 2000, the defendant approached the plaintiff with off...
Banti Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON : May 13, 2013 DECIDED ON : July 04, 2013 + CRL.A. 499/2012 BANTI ..... Appellant Through : Ms.Anita Abraham, Advocate. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. The appellant-Banti impugns judgment dated 18.11.2010 in Sessions Case No.46/2009 arising out of FIR No.302/2008 under Section 392/394/397/411/34 IPC registered at Police Station Adarsh Nagar by which he was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 394/34 IPC and under Section 397 IPC read with Section 27 Arms Act. By an order dated 19.11.2010, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with total fine `5,000/-.2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 5.12.2008 at about 07.30 A.M. near Petrol Pump, Mukandpur Road, Jal Board Ground, he and Vicky (Convicted under Section 392 IPC) in furtherance of their common intention robbed Tata Mobile Phone and `130/- from Shash...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. H.B. Leasing and Finance Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
$~R-9 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:4. h July, 2013 + Income Tax Appeal 6/2000 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus H.B. LEASING & FINANCE LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Santosh K. Aggarwal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJIV KHANNA, J.(Oral) The present appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) relates to the assessment year 1986-87.2. The following substantial questions of law were framed while admitting the present appeal vide order dated 6th September, 2000:A) Whether a tanker mounted on the chasis of the truck can be separated for the purposes of depreciation, qua the truck and can it be equated with LPG cylinders for having a claim of depreciation @ 100% on such tanker? B) Whether in law there can be a segregation of the parts of the truck for the purpose of claiming depreci...
Jagdish Singh Vs. C.B.i
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 491/2003 Reserved on:25. h April, 2013 Decided on:04. h July, 2013 % JAGDISH SINGH Through ..... Appellant Mr. Anurag Jain, Adv. versus C.B.I ..... Respondent Through Mr. R.V. Sinha, SC. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA 1 The Appellant impugnes the judgment dated 21st July, 2003 whereby he has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the PC Act) and the order on sentence dated 22nd July, 2003 whereby he has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 7 PC Act and simple imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act.2. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the only evidence of initial demand is of PW1, who has made substantial improvements in his statement before the ...
Rajender Kumar Vs. Sharda
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: July 04, 2013 + RC. Rev. No.554/2012 RAJENDER KUMAR Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Rajesh Sharda, Adv. versus SHARDA Through ..... Respondent Mr.Amit Raghav, Adv. with Mr.Jatin Rajput & Mr.Anupam Dubey, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(ORAL) 1. The abovementioned petition has been filed by the petitioner against the rejection of leave to defend application and eviction order dated 18 th April, 2012 passed by the Addl. Rent Controller, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Eviction Petition No.62/2012 as there was two days delay in filing the application for leave to defend.2. Admittedly, the petitioner received the summons on 21st March, 2012 in the prescribed form. The application for leave to defend was filed on 9 th April, 2012. The last date for filing the application for leave to defend was 5th April, 2012, under the prescribed period of 15 days. The 5th and 6th April, 2012 were national holidays....
Kallu Ram Vs. Laxmi Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment pronounced on: July 04, 2013 RC. Rev. No.317/2012, C.M.Nos.12074/2012 & 12113/2012 KALLU RAM ..... Petitioner Through Mr.R.S.Sharma, Adv. versus LAXMI DEVI ..... Respondent Through Mr.L.C.Rajput, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(ORAL) 1. The abovementioned petition has been filed by the petitioner against the rejection of leave to defend application and eviction order dated 24th April, 2012 passed by the Rent Controller (North), Delhi in Eviction Petition No.22/2011. The main reason for rejection of application was that the same has not been filed within stipulated period.2. The prayer made in the petition is to set-aside and quash the order dated 24th April, 2012.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the fact that there is delay of one day in filing the application for leave to defend.4. The petitioner received the summons on 3rd July, 2011. The application for leave to defend was ...
Modi Rubber Ltd. Vs. Ramesh Malik and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + R.S.A. No.163 of 2012 & C.M. No.17035 of 2012 Decided on :04. h July, 2013 MODI RUBBER LTD. Through: Appellant Mr. Saket Sikri, Advocate. Versus RAMESH MALIK & ANR. Through: Respondents Ms. Manmeet Arora, Advocate for R-1. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant under Section 100 read with Order XLII CPC against the judgment dated 15.5.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge dismissing the appeal being R.C.A. No.8/2010 and upholding the judgment and decree dated 31.5.2010 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller in Suit No.79/2006.2. I have heard Mr. Saket Sikri, the learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Manmeet Arora, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1.3. Mr. Sikri, the learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the following three substantial questions of law arise from the present appeal which warrant the hearing of t...