Delhi Court November 2015 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2015 Page 11 of about 129 results (0.011 seconds)Ex-Constable/Driver S. Bijender Vs. UOI and Others
Court: Delhi
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The writ petitioner, in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on him by his employer. He was working as driver in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). 2. The case involves a complex factual matrix of 3 drivers who were charged and subsequently dismissed from the CRPF on account of driving, under influence of liquor, a Tata Truck bearing registration no. DL-1G-0839 into a Civil Matador resulting in the deaths of 8 persons, injury to 15 and damage to both civilian and CRPF property on 19.07.1997. The Constables/Drivers in question are Bijender Singh (Force No. 910710223) [ the petitioner hereafter], K.K. Rai (Force No. 880891909) [ Rai hereafter] and Virender Singh (Force No. 913129579) [ Virender hereafter). Rai and Virender preferred W.P. (C) 666 of 2001. Bijender impugns the Order dated 30.03.2000 based on an Enquiry Officer's Report dated 07.01.2000. The said order was sub...
Tag this Judgment!Rekha Nambiar and Another Vs. C B I
Court: Delhi
1. By way of the present petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( ˜Cr.P.C.'), both the petitioners have challenged the order on charge dated 01.05.2014 and order dated 26.05.2014 whereby charges against the petitioners were framed as under: That you Smt. Rekha Nambiar being the wife of A-1 Ramesh Nambiar, and you A-3 Bhojraj Teli being the person In-charge of M/s. HYT Group of Companies during the period 14.10.1991 to 26.02.2010 instigated / intentionally aided by your acts and illegal omissions Shri Ramesh Nambiar acquiring assets to the tune of Rs.2,08,38,172.62 which were disproportionate to his known sources of income and thereby abetted the commission of offence u/s 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act punishable u/s 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by Ramesh Nambiar and thereby committed offence u/s 109 IPC r/w Sec. 13 (1)(e) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and within my cognizance and jurisdiction. ? 2. Since, b...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Nanda and Another Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Sanjiv Khanna, J. 1. Perfect matching of specimen finger prints of the two appellants Deepak Nanda and Bhagirath with the chance prints lifted from the tea cups at the place of occurrence, the prosecution alleges and the judgment under challenge dated 6th January, 2014 pronounces, unravels baffling homicidal deaths of Seema, aged 33 years and her two children Nishant and Kunal, aged about 4 and 7 years. Per contra, the two appellants seek acquittal primarily predicated on alluded technical and procedural lapses and failure of the prosecution during investigation and trial, which it is submitted dents and nullifies the affirmative finger print report marked Ex.PW35/A. For clarity we do record that the impugned judgment also relies on corroborative circumstantial evidence. 2. The appellant Bhagirath, son of Raja Ram, is cousin brother of Hemchand (PW24), husband of late Seema and father of Nishant and Kunal. Deepak Nanda, the second convict and co-participant, is stated to be a friend an...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmal Kaur Vs. Surjit Kaur and Others
Court: Delhi
E.A.(OS) No.122/2011 (objections filed by JD-4), E.A. (OS) No.114/2011 (objections filed by Objector Karishma), E.A. (OS) No.728/2014 (objections filed by objector Harinder Singh) and E.A. (OS) No.729/2014 (for stay) 1. By way of this order, I propose to decide the objections filed by judgment-debtor No.4 being E.A.(OS) No.122/2011 as well as on behalf of Ms.Karishma daughter of Late Mr.Vijay Virdhi and grand-daughter of Late Sh.Joginder Singh Dhiman, being E.A.(OS) No.114/2011 and also on behalf of another Objector Mr.Harinder Singh, being E.A.(OS) No.728/2014 and his application for stay being E.A.(OS) No.729/2014. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Sale Deed of plot No.C-18, Mansoraver Garden, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property ?) was executed on 10th May, 1965 by Bharat Builders and Colonizers, in favour of Late Sh.Chanan Ram, for sale consideration of Rs.12,800/- which was registered on 20th May, 1965. 3. Late Sh.Chanan Ram by his last Will and Testament ...
Tag this Judgment!JSL Media Ltd. Vs. Advert Communications Pvt Ltd.
Court: Delhi
1. The plaintiff has filed the present summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC for the recovery of Rs.37,43,911/- along with costs and interest against the defendant. 2. The plaintiff is a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 (formerly known as Parivartan City Infrastructure Limited) with its Registered Office at 28, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi-110015 and Corporate Office at Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066. The name of the plaintiff Company was changed on 30th August, 2010. The Registrar of Companies was informed and the new name of the Company was entered by the Registrar of Companies. The fresh certificate of incorporation of the plaintiff Company dated 30th August, 2010 has been placed on record. 3. As per the plaint, the plaintiff has various Bus Queue Shelters (hereinafter referred to as "BQS") at different locations/sites in the National Capital Territory of Delhi which the plaintiff gainfully uses for advertisement purposes. The defend...
Tag this Judgment!PR. Commissioner of Income Tax -18 Vs. Silver Line
Court: Delhi
S. Muralidhar, J. 1. These eight appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( ˜Act') are directed against a common impugned order dated 26th September 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ˜ITAT') in four appeals of the Revenue being ITA Nos. 1809, 1504, 1505 and 1506/Del/2013 and four cross objections of the Assessee being CO Nos. 122, 109, 107 and 108/Del/2013 for the Assessment Years ( ˜AYs') 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. 2. The central issue in the present case is whether the failure by the Assessing Officer ( ˜AO') to issue a notice to the Assessee under Section 143(2) of the Act is fatal to the reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148 of the Act? 3. The Assessee firm is engaged in the business of trading in silver and gold jewellery and also in precious and semi-precious stones. A return of income in the Saral Formwas initially filed by the Assessee for AY 2005-06 on 20th September 2005. The return wa...
Tag this Judgment!Jet Lite (India) Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-XVI an ...
Court: Delhi
S. Muralidhar, J. Introduction 1. These are appeals both by the Assessee and the Revenue, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( ˜Act'). While ITA Nos. 204 of 2002 and 205 of 2002 by the Revenue are directed against the common order dated 12th February 2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ˜ITAT') in ITA Nos.950 to 954/Del/2001 for the Financial Years ( ˜FY') 1994-95 to 1998-99, ITA Nos. 128 of 2005 by the Assessee is directed against the impugned order dated 30th August 2004 passed by the ITAT in ITA No. 2753,3151, 3152 and 3153(Del)/1999 for the Assessment Years ( ˜AYs') 1996-97, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. ITA Nos. 1206 of 2005 and 1209 of 2005 of the Revenue are directed against the common order dated 12th April 2005 passed by the ITAT in ITA Nos. l42and1143/Del/01 for the AYs 1998-99 and 1999-2000. ITA No. 86 of 2011 by the Revenue is directed against the impugned order dated 10th July 2009 passed by ITAT in ITA No. 682/All/2000 for...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and Others Vs. Jai Balaji Industries Ltd and Another
Court: Delhi
Jayant Nath, J. 1. The present appeal is filed seeking to impugn the order dated 29.06.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge. Vide said order the learned Single Judge disposed of W.P.(C) No. 5124/2014 titled as Madhu Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. vs. UOI and Ors. and W.P.(C) 5127/2014 titled as Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. and Anr. vs. UOI and Ors. 2. The brief facts of W.P.(C) 5127/2014 (Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. v. Union of India) are stated herein as parties had made submissions in this appeal. The brief facts which led to filing of the writ petition are that the appellant, i.e. Indian Railways floated a Wagon Investment Scheme (hereinafter referred to as WIS') dated 30.03.2005 with the objective of encouraging public private partnership in procurement of wagons. Under the said Scheme, an investor could purchase at his own cost as many rakes or wagons and give them to the railways to be used by it in a common pool of wagons. In return, in case of BOX'N type of wagons (the wagon ...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil @ Jalebi and Others Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Sanjiv Khanna, J. (Oral) 1. The appellants Satender @ Satte and Sushil @ Jalebi, by the impugned judgment dated 25.03.2014 have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC ?), for having committed murder of Ram Babu @ Ramu between 11:20-11:40 PM on 07.09.2008 near Flat No.D-1/85, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi. Satender @ Satte and Sushil @ Jalebi have also been convicted under Section 397 IPC. Appellant Ram Singh @ Aarami, by the same impugned judgment has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, observing that there was no overt act of stabbing attributable to him (for detailed reasoning reference can be made to paragraph no .46 of the impugned judgment). However the appellant Ram Singh stands convicted under Section 394 IPC for participating in the robbery with Satender @ Satte and Sushil @ Jalebi resulting in theft of the mobile phone, which was being used by the deceased Ram Babu @ Ramu. 2. By order on sentenc...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Kumar Vs. O.P. Joshi
Court: Delhi
1. By way of the present four appeals filed under section 378 (4) and (5) of Cr.P.C. appellant assailed the common judgment dated 20.04.2012 passed by ld. Trial Court four similar complaints filed under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 being CC No. 1979 to 1982/10/05 thereby acquitted the respondent in all the cases. 2. The aforementioned complaints had arisen out of the transactions which took place between the parties during relevant period. Therefore, in the interest of justice and to avoid judicial conflict on decision, all appeals are being decided by way of a common judgment. 3. As per the case of the appellant/complainant, respondent/accused took a friendly loan of Rs.8.25 Lac from the complainant for a short term and agreed to repay the said amount with interest @ 18% per annum and in order to secure repayment of said loan, respondent delivered 10 post-dated cheques for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each drawn on Corporation Bank, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi to the ap...
Tag this Judgment!