Delhi Court November 2015 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2015 Page 1 of about 129 results (0.021 seconds)Gopal Vs. Hindustan Times Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Mukta Gupta, J. 1. Gopal, the appellant herein was appointed as a Canteen Boy with the respondent M/s Hindustan Times Limited (in short Hindustan Times') w.e.f April 01, 1974, confirmed as Helper and later promoted to the post of Assistant Offset Machine Man on July 25, 2001. Services of Gopal were terminated vide order dated July 23, 2004 on the ground that he had been absenting without leave and thus Gopal raised an industrial dispute on which a reference was made to the Labour Court. In the claim petition, Gopal stated that the order of termination was passed without any inquiry in violation of principles of natural justice and hence the termination was mala fide and illegal. 2. In reply the case of the Hindustan Times was that show cause notice was issued to Gopal for his unauthorised absence for which he gave no satisfactory reply and thus there was no requirement of holding a domestic inquiry and the termination was justified and legal. The respondent pointed out that the last dr...
Tag this Judgment!Carrara Marbles and Granite Industries Vs. Simplex Enterprises
Court: Delhi
1. The present appeal under Section 378 Cr PC is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.03.2012 passed by Sh. Nipun Awasthi, M.M.-01 (NI Act) South, Saket Courts, New Delhi in CC. No. 1333/1, whereby the appellants/complainants complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) was dismissed, and the accused/respondent was acquitted. 2. The case of the complainant Carrara Marbles and Granite Industries, is that it is a proprietary concern of Sh. Ashok Mittal, son of Sh. Gurdas Rai Mittal, and deals in the business of Italian Marbles. The complainant supplied Italian Marbles to the accused and maintained a running account of the accused. The goods were supplied on the assurance of the accused that the price of the marbles would be remitted by them to the complainant by way of cheques. The complainant claimed that the outstanding liability of the accused was to the tune of Rs.1,78,00,000/-, and to discharge the said liability the accused issued the fol...
Tag this Judgment!Munna Lal and Another Vs. State
Court: Delhi
R.K. Gauba, J. 1. Ram Asre, son of Baijnath ( the victim ?), aged about 22 years, resident of jhuggi no. N-116 (also N-23), Indira Vikas Colony, falling within the jurisdiction of police station Mukherjee Nagar ( the police station ?) suffered homicidal death, on account of stab injuries, received in an incident that took place at about 09:30 PM on 21.03.1997 in front of jhuggi no.A-105 (N-15) in the same slum settlement. The case registered by the police (FIR No.147/1997) resulted in report of investigation (dated 28.06.1997) under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C") being submitted. On its basis, the appellants herein were brought to trial in sessions case no.194/1997 on the charge for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ?). The appellant Munna Lal ( the first accused ?) was also tried on the additional charge, under Section 27 of the Arms Act, on the allegation that he had used a dagger in the commission of offence of m...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-V Vs. Provestment Securities (P.) Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter 'the Act') calling into question an order dated 13th July, 2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter 'the Tribunal') in ITA No. 2485/Del/2010. The said appeal was filed by the Assessee challenging an order dated 31st March, 2010 passed by the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter 'CIT(A)')] in Appeal no. 153/CIT(A) (xvii)/ Del/ 08-09 whereby the appeal filed by the Assessee against the assessment order dated 15th December, 2008 passed by the Assessing Officer (hereafter 'the AO') for the assessment year 2006-07, was rejected. 2. The principal controversy in the present case involves a Lamborghini Car bearing registration no. PB-09G-0052, which had been exclusively used by one Mr Sameer Thapar who is a major shareholder of the Assessee Company in his capacity as a Karta of Sameer Thapar and Sons (HUF). Whilst the Assessee Company has paid the im...
Tag this Judgment!Praveen and Others Vs. State
Court: Delhi
1. These appeals are directed against the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 12.09.2012 and 27.09.2012 respectively wherein each of the appellants namely Praveen, Mohd. Imran and Mujib stand convicted under Section 392/394/397 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Each of them has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for one year. 2. The nominal roll of the appellants has been requisitioned. It reflects that as on date, appellant Praveen has undergone incarceration of 5 years and 5 months; Mohd. Imran has undergone incarceration of 5 years and 3 months and so also Mujib who has also undergone incarceration of 5 years and 3 months. This includes the remissions earned by the appellants. 3. The version of the prosecution was unfolded in the statement of the complainant namely Anita Soni. She was examined as PW-1. Her version was to the effect that on the fateful day i.e. on 10.09.2007 at a...
Tag this Judgment!Maina Devi Vs. Rati Ram
Court: Delhi
FAO 225/2009 and CM No. 9912/2009 1. This is an appeal which is directed against the judgment dated 18.02.2009, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi. By virtue of the said judgment, the learned ADJ, rejected the appellant's petition dated 05.04.2004, preferred under Section 263, 264 and 282 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (in short the 1925 Act). 1.2 The appellant via the said petition had sought cancellation of Letters of Administration granted in favour of the respondent vide judgment dated 21.04.1994. 2. The appellant, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, passed by the learned ADJ, instituted the present appeal. 3. In order to adjudicate upon the present appeal, the following broad facts are required to be noticed: 3.1 The respondent had filed a petition under Section 276 and 278 of the 1925 Act for grant of Letters of Administration in respect of a registered Will dated 23.11.1981, executed by, one, Late Sh. Jumma Mal. The executor of the Will i.e. Sh. Jumma Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Sukendu Sekhar Basak and Others Vs. Dilip Kumar Bose
Court: Delhi
CRL.M.C. 432/2015 1. Vide the present petition, petitioners seek directions thereby quashing of impugned order dated 19.11.2014 on the basis of which summons were issued against them on 18.12.2014 by the ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts, New Delhi. 2. Further seeks directions thereby quashing the criminal complaint No. 324/1 titled as D.K. Bose v. S.S. Basak', pending before the said Court. 3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that respondent had filed a Suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction being no. 55/2013 before the ld. Sr. Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, thereby stated as under: 4. ..................................................................................... xii. Mr. Arun Biswas (Treasurer) misrepresented to donors and fraudulently collected donations as having exemption got under Section 80-G of Income Tax Act for donation toward the Samity. xiii. They illegally resolved to induct Mr. M.K. Mookherjee, Mr. Dipak Mukhopadhy...
Tag this Judgment!Narendar Singh Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
1. The present writ petition challenges the correctness of the order dated 16.03.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal') in O.A. 179/2006, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the said O.A. filed by the petitioner. 2. The facts of the present case are as under: The applicant was appointed as Constable in the year 1984 was proceeded for certain acts of misconduct under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred as the Rules). He was placed under suspension w.e.f. 29.04.2004, which remained in force till aforesaid penalty order was passed. Summary of allegations dated 11.06.2004 besides lists of witnesses and documents were served upon him. Primary allegation was that while working in Summon Cell/NDD, he misused his official capacity and lifted one Shri Shoban Banerjee from his residence on 15.04.2004. The gravamen of the allegation made was that: he brought one Mr. Shoban Banerjee of Sagar Pur ...
Tag this Judgment!Gudiya Khatoon Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
R.K. Gauba, J. (Oral) 1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal has been taken up for final hearing. 2. The appellant was put to trial on the charge that on 29th October, 2013 at about 6/6.30 A.M. in Ward No. 19B of Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Hospital ( the hospital ?) within the jurisdiction of Police Station I.P. Estate she committed murder of her infant daughter Saalam (hereinafter referred as the victim child ?) by throwing her into a sewer within the compound of the hospital and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and thereafter intentionally gave false information to the police and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 203 IPC. By judgment dated 20th April, 2015, she was held guilty and convicted, as charged. By order dated 21st April, 2015, she was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two ...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind Khanna Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
1. Vide Crl. M.C. No.2784/2011, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR bearing No.RC-AC-1-2007-A-0003 dated 02.04.2007, chargesheet dated 13.12.2010 and the order dated 05.07.2011 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-01 (ACMM), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, whereby cognizance under Section 35 read with Section 3 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (hereinafter shall be called FCRA, 2010) was taken and summons were issued against the petitioner. 2. Vide Crl. M.C. No.3342/2011, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 20.08.2011 passed by the learned Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No.02/2011 filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). While allowing the said revision petition, order dated 05.07.2011 was substituted providing that deemed cognizance has been taken under Section 23 read with Section 4 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter shall be called FCRA, 1976'). 3. Since the issues raised in bot...
Tag this Judgment!