Delhi Court November 2015 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2015 Page 12 of about 129 results (0.012 seconds)Gloria Chauhan @ Pinky Chauhan Vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
G.S. Sistani, J. (Oral) 1. Present writ petition has been filed by petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ in nature of habeas corpus thereby directing respondents no.1 to 5 to produce her minor daughter, Ms.Kaankshita, who is eight years of age and is in illegal custody of respondents no.4 and 5, before this Court. The petitioner also seeks a direction to protect the life of the minor daughter from respondents no.4 and 5 and grant interim custody of the minor child to the petitioner. 2. In this case, respondent no.1 and petitioner are husband and wife, respectively. The petitioner is a Masters in Sociology and respondent no.4 is a serving Wing Commander in the Indian Air Force. 3. As per the petition, marriage between the petitioner and respondent no.4 was solemnized on 1.5.2006. Out of their wedlock, one daughter, namely, Kaankshita, was born on 5.9.2007. As per the petition, since the birth of the girl child, she has been under t...
Tag this Judgment!Mandeep Singh @ Another Vs. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Court: Delhi
CRL.M.A.No.17607/2014 (Delay) 1. For the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the delay is condoned. 2. The application for condonation of delay is disposed of. CRL.A. 1543/2014 1. Challenge in this appeal is to a judgment dated 18.11.2013 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge / Special Judge “ NDPS in Sessions Case No. 71A/07 by which the appellants “ Gurudev Singh and Mandeep Singh were held guilty for committing offences under Sections 21 (c) and 29 of NDPS Act. By an order dated 25.11.2013, they were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years with fine Rs. 1 lac each under both the heads. The sentences were to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the complaint filed by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter referred to as DRI') through Gurjit Singh, Intelligence Officer, was that on 07.05.2007, a secret information was received at DRI Headquarters by Kamal Kumar, Intell...
Tag this Judgment!Manisha Sharma Vs. Commissioner of Delhi Police
Court: Delhi
CM No.25721/2015 (for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) No.10317/2015 3. The petition impugns the order dated 31st October, 2015 of the respondent Commissioner of Police, Delhi rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of Temporary Fireworks Licence for sale of fire crackers on the occasion of Diwali of the year 2015 from shop in property No.E-266, Gali No.3, Main Road, Shastri Nagar, Delhi on the following grounds: 1. The proposed Shop is not safe and there is transformer in the vicinity. Besides people have got lot of resentment and insecurity as regards selling of fireworks in the shop. ? 4. Though the impugned order itself intimated the petitioner of the availability of the remedy of appeal thereagainst but the said remedy has not been availed; the counsel for the petitioner states that the licence was applied for the period 20th October, 2015 to 13th November, 2015 and since the rejection is dated 31st October...
Tag this Judgment!Ryan International School and Another Vs. Hemlata and Another
Court: Delhi
Oral: 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the Delhi School Tribunal dated May 22, 2015 in Appeal No.08/2013, which was filed by the respondent No.1 against the inquiry report dated September 29, 2012 and the dismissal order dated December 7, 2012. 2. It is the submission of Mr. Romy Chacko, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that a show-cause notice dated May 8, 2012 was issued to the respondent No.1 on the basis of a complaint of Mr. Deepak Bhatt, father of one of the student namely Abhishek, that on May 7, 2012, the respondent No.1 had slapped his son Master Abhishek on his cheek due to which he got scared of coming to school. The show cause notice also gives reference to one Mr. Puran Singh inquiring from the student in the presence of the class teacher Mrs. Anshu Kukreja, when the student admitted that the respondent No.1 had slapped him. Reference was given to the various complaints made in the past, when the respondent No.1 was warned. The said sh...
Tag this Judgment!Him Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Customs (General)
Court: Delhi
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. WP(C) 9660/2015 and CM No.23058 /2015(stay) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the order-in-original dated 01.09.2015, whereby the Commissioner of Customs has revoked the Customs House Agent (CHA for short) licence of the petitioner and ordered forfeiture of the security furnished by the petitioner and further imposed a penalty under Regulation 22 read with Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the CBLR, 2013). 2. Though the impugned order is an appealable order, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for exercise of its writ jurisdiction on the ground that the order has been passed without complying with the principles of natural justice. 3. Normally, in a case where a petitioner is seeking to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court, impugning an order from which an appeal lies, this Court would be reluctant to interfere in the same a...
Tag this Judgment!In the Matter of: Tirath Ram Shah Charitable Trust and Others Vs. Sugh ...
Court: Delhi
I.A. 12447/2008 (by the plaintiffs u/O XII R 6 CPC) 1. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff under Order XII, Rule 6 CPC praying inter alia for passing a decree of possession in respect of the suit premises in its favour, based on the admissions made by the defendants. 2. A brief glance at the factual matrix of the case is considered necessary. The plaintiff/Trust has filed the suit for a decree of possession against Smt. Sughra Begum, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants in respect of a shop on the ground floor of the Tirath Ram Shah Charitable Trust Hospital, being run by it at Rajpur Road, Delhi, for recovery of a sum of Rs.36 lacs towards the arrears of rent/donation/contribution, and for pendentelite and future damages towards the use and occupation of the said shop alongwith interest etc. 3. As per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff/Trust had let out the subject shop to Mrs. Sughra Begum (since deceased) for the purpose of supplying drugs, ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. M/s. Ktech Engineers Builders Co Pvt Ltd. and Anoth ...
Court: Delhi
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. (Oral) CM No. 25264/2015 (exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CAV 1141/2015 The learned counsel for the respondents / caveator is present. The caveat stands discharged. FAO(OS) 608/2015 and CM Nos 25262/2015 (delay in filing), 25263/2015 (stay) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.05.2015 delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in OMP No.331/2014, which was a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act'). 2. The said petition was filed in respect of the award dated 16.12.2013 made by a sole arbitrator in disputes which had arisen between the parties. The disputes arose out of a contract entered into between the appellant and the respondent, whereby the respondent was required to construct the Army Mess and Auditorium at Delhi Cantt. The contract was entered on 22.03.2006 and the work was to be completed on 12.10.2007 (i.e. within 18 month...
Tag this Judgment!Dharmender Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Oral: 1. The petitioner assails the judgment and order dated 21.03.2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in DD No.63B whereby the petitioner was convicted under Sections 53/116 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, and was sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years, a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, SI for a period of 2 months by order on sentence dated 31.03.2014. 2. The petitioner is also aggrieved with the Appellate order dated 31.08.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge, CBI-01, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in Criminal Appeal No.3/2014 whereby the judgment of conviction by the Trial Court was upheld but the sentence imposed upon the petitioner was reduced from 2 years to 6 months. 3. The petitioner was externed from the territory of Delhi by order dated 24.03.2009 passed by the competent authority. By the aforesaid order, the petitioner was directed to remove himself from the territorial lim...
Tag this Judgment!Vikas and Others Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) and Another
Court: Delhi
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Vikas, Brij Mohan and Sudha for quashing of FIR No.1073/2014 dated 17.09.2014, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar, Delhi on the basis of settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent No.2-Ms. Veena at the Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 17.10.2014. 2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question by her counsel. 3. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the mediation report, the petitioner no.1/husband and respondent no.2 shall file jointly for a divorce by mutual consent. The petitioner no.1 also promised to pay a sum of Rs. 1.5 lacs to the respondent no.2 towards the full and final settlement qua her...
Tag this Judgment!Zillion Infra Projects (P) Ltd. Vs. Fab-Tech Works and Constructions P ...
Court: Delhi
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. 1. The appellant impugns order dated 28.08.2015 passed in OMP(I) 489/2015 whereby the learned single judge, in a petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has been pleased to restrain encashment of the bank guarantee No. 17/14 dated 28th May, 2014. 2. The Appellant had issued a Letter of Intent in favour of the Respondent No. 1 on 23.04.2014 for transportation of materials from BHEL/B and R/Client Stores/Storage Yard to work site, erection, alignment, testing and commissioning, trial, operation and handing over of boiler structure and its auxiliaries including piping, insulation, final painting etc. for unit 4 of 2 x 660 MW NTPC, Mouda Project, District Nagpur on back to back basis. 3. In terms of the letter of intent, the Respondent No. 1 submitted with the Appellants, the Bank Guarantee No. 17/14 dated 28th May, 2014 with an aggregate limit of Rs. 36,64,392/-, in lieu of Cash Deposit against Secur...
Tag this Judgment!