Delhi Court October 2015 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.
Babu Lal Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-06-2015
1. Babu Lal Aggarwal, the informant of FIR No.58/2013 (PS Palam Vihar) challenges the order dated 25.11.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, in Criminal Revision Petition No.89/2014 whereby the charges framed against Respondent no.2 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, on 26.02.2014 has been set aside and Respondent no.2 has been discharged. 2. The petitioner had lodged a written complaint on 17.12.2012 alleging that his neighbours Suresh Chand @ Mast Ram and Daya Nand Aggarwal insisted upon him for purchasing an agricultural land situated in a village at Haryana, which land stood in the name of Smt. Bina (Respondent no.2), who was stated to be the sister-in-law of Suresh Chand. Financial stringency and the need for raising funds were the avowed reasons for the insistence on purchase of the said plot of land from Respondent no.2. The petitioner agreed for purchasing the plot of land in question and i...
Central Govt. Employees €™ Welfare Housing Organisation Vs. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-06-2015
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral): 1. By this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'), petitioner herein; the respondent in the arbitration proceedings; impugns the Award of the Arbitrator dated 23.7.2003 by which the respondent herein; the claimant in the arbitration proceedings; was held entitled to an amount of Rs.27,30,600/- alongwith interest at 9% per annum simple on account of reimbursement of tax paid by the respondent under the Maharashtra Sales Tax on the Transfer of Property in Goods (= cement) involved in the Execution of Works Contracts (Re-enacted) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Maharashtra Act, 1989'), inasmuch as such tax (hereinafter works contract tax/sales tax') was to be paid by the petitioner as per Clause 12 of the contract but the petitioner had failed to pay the same. 2. The facts of the case are that petitioner engaged the respondent-contractor for construction of 554 dwelling units at K...
Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Vijay Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-06-2015
1. By way of present petition, the petitioner lays a challenge to the Award dated 20th March, 2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in ID 182/2005 vide which the respondent/workman was held entitled to be reinstated with 40% back wages. As regard regularization, it was held that he was entitled to be considered for regularization in accordance with the policy of regularization framed by the management, however, he was not entitled to same wages as are paid to regular employees of the same category. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner engaged the respondent as sweeper on muster roll for cleaning/sweeping w.e.f. the year 1992. The respondent got the wages only for the specific days he reported for duty. However, the conduct of the respondent/workman was always unsatisfactory and the respondent used to remain absent from his duty. In November, 2000, he came on duty only for eight days, in December, 2000, he re...
M/s. ARN Infrastructure India Pvt Ltd. Vs. Avatar Singh Gill (HUF)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2015
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act') impugning the order dated 17.03.2015 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act. 2. The respondent had booked a unit measuring 1500 sq. feet approximately on the first floor of the IT/ITeS Complex called GLOBUS being constructed by the appellant. As per the MOU dated 22.04.2008, the total consideration was fixed at Rs. 32,25,000/-. The complex was to be completed and the unit handed over by December 2009. The appellant undertook to pay a sum of Rs. 77,250/- per month to the respondent w.e.f. May 2008 up to the date of handing over of possession as the respondent had made a one-time payment of the entire amount in advance. 3. The respondent raised a claim on the ground that the appellant had failed to discharge its obligations to pay the agreed sum of Rs. 77,...
Harish C. Rai Vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2015
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: a) issue a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 30.6.2015 whereby the respondents have withheld the leave encashment and gratuity of the petitioner and issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the leave encashment and gratuity of the petitioner along with interest. b) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the show cause notice dated 19.6.2015 issued by the respondents. ? 2. As is clear from the reliefs prayed for, the respondents have withheld the leave encashment and gratuity of the petitioner on the date, he superannuated from service. The petitioner at the relevant point of time was working as Controller of Examinations with the respondent Nos.1 to 3. 3. It is the case of the petitioner in the writ petition that the withholding of the leave encashment and gratuity was because of the pendency of three vigilance cases against him, being RC 46(A)/2009, 47(A) 2009 and RC...
Rekha Rani Vs. CBI Through its Standing Counsel
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2015
1. Present petition is directed against the orders dated 31st July, 2014 and 1st August, 2014 passed by learned Special Judge CBI-3 (PC Act), New Delhi in CC No. 6/13 and consequential proceedings arising out of FIR No. RC-35A/2005/DLI/CBI/ACB/New Delhi. 2. The charge-sheet filed against the petitioner and her husband Sh.Anand Kumar Singhal, was on the charges that her husband being a public servant while working on various posts at various places has possessed assets of worth Rs.1,01,74,878/- in his name and in the name of petitioner, which were disproportionate to the tune of Rs.54,34,515/- to his known sources of income. Accordingly, vide order dated 01.08.2014, learned Trial Court framed charge against husband of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as the said Act). And charge against the petitioner was framed for the offences punishable under Section 109 of the...
Shivani Bhat Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2015
Oral: Go not to the temple to put flowersupon the feet of God,First fill your own house with theFragrance of love and kindness.Go not to the temple to light candlesbefore the altar of God,First remove the darkness of sin,pride and ego,From your heart ..Go not to the temple to bow downyour head in prayer,First learn to bow in humility beforeyour fellowmen.And apologise to those you havewronged.Go not to the temple to pray onbended knees,First bend down to lift someone who is down-trodden.And strengthen the young ones.Not crush them.Go not to the temple to ask for forgiveness for your sins,First forgive from your heart thosewho have hurt ?- Rabindranath Tagore 1. Shivani is a brave-heart. 2. The present petition highlights and brings to the fore the socio-economic marginalization and exclusion of those whose behaviour is considered inappropriate by society. It clearly demonstrates that those who do not conform, render themselves vulnerable to harassment and violence not just by the Polic...
In the matter of The Companies Act, 1956 and the Companies Act, 2013 ( ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2015
1. This joint petition has been filed under Sections 391(2) and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 by the petitioner companies seeking sanction of the Scheme of Amalgamation of Apex Safety Glass Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferor company No. 1), Narang Academic Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferor company No. 2), and S P Solutions Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferor company No. 3) with New Delhi Realcon Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferee company). 2. The registered offices of the transferor and transferee companies are situated at New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of this Court. 3. The transferor company no. 1 was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 5th March, 2003 with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana at New Delhi. 4. The transferor company no. 2 was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 22nd August, 2005 with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Hary...
State Bank of Hyderabad and Others Vs. All India Bank Deposit Collecto ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2015
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Syndicate Bank was the original pioneer of a movement to penetrate banking in small muffasil towns when it introduced a Pigmy Deposit Scheme. By virtue of the deposits Syndicate Bank grew from a pigmy to a giant. Others followed, giving it names such as Honey Bees Scheme, Small Depositors Scheme, Mini Deposit Salap Sanchey, Pragati Deposit Scheme, Nityha Laxmi Deposit Scheme, Timely Deposit Collection Scheme, Honey Deposit Collection Scheme, Janta Deposit Scheme etc. As per the scheme, the banks appointed Deposit Collectors who would go to the house or the work place of the customers and collect a daily deposit which was credited to the account of the customer. The customer would earn interest on the deposit and the bank would augment its resources. It was a win-win situation for the bank as well as the customer. The daily Deposit Collector would earn a commission on the deposit collected. 2. The daily Deposit Collectors called Commission Agents by some banks, ...
Ajay Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2015
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 07.02.2012 and 14.02.2012 respectively wherein the appellant stands convicted under Section 21-C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act'). He had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3 lacs and in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for a period of one year. 2. The nominal roll of the appellant reflects that as on date, he has undergone incarceration of 5 years and 9 months; remission being inapplicable to a convict under the said Act. Fine has not been paid. 3. The version of the prosecution is that on 29.12.2009 at about 05:30 pm near the Shastri Park Majar, the accused was found to be in illegal possession of 270 gms of heroin; this contained 1% diacetylmorphine which was the unlawful contraband. This recovery had been effected pursuant to a secret information which had been recorded in the police s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »