Delhi Court November 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.
Chand Singh and Others Vs. The Narcotics Control Bureau
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 15.09.2010 passed by Sh. Sanjiv Jain, Special Judge, NDPS in S.C. No. N-48/08, convicting Appellant Chand Singh, Appellant Jasbir Singh and Appellant Narender Singh Jakhar for the offences punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) C and Section 29 read with Section 20 (b) (ii) C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as the Act') and the order on sentence dated 17.09.2010, sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) C of the Act. Further they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay the fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for offence punishable under Section 29 read with Section 20 ...
Kamal Bajaj Vs. The State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-2015
Oral: 1. The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 301/2014 (PS Patel Nagar) instituted for offence under section 420 of the IPC on the strength of a settlement having been arrived at with the complainant/informant (respondent No.2). 2. As per the FIR, the petitioner had approached the respondent no.2 for purchase of the Ground Floor of property bearing no. M-118, Vikas Puri, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the property'). The petitioner is said to have represented himself to respondent no.2, as the owner of the aforesaid property and that the said property was free from all encumbrances, lien, decree etc. 3. It is submitted, that on such representation the respondent no.2 agreed to purchase the said property and entered into an agreement to sale with the petitioner. The total sale consideration was agreed at Rs. 1.25 Crore, out of which a sum of Rs. 20 Lakhs was paid by the respondent no.2. It was agreed that the balance amount would be paid at the time of execution of the sale ...
Balbir Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-2015
Sanjiv Khanna, J. (Oral) 1. Balbir by the judgment under challenge dated 17.11.1999 stands convicted for murder of his wife Mamta at about 1:30/2:00 AM in the intervening night between 20th and 21st July, 1997 and for perpetrating cruelty and harassment under Section 498-A IPC of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC in short). 2. By the order on sentence dated 26.11.1999, the appellant Balbir has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Substantive sentences it is directed would run concurrently and benefit of Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C, for short) would apply. 3. The factum that the deceased Mamta had married Balbir about two years prior to the date of occurrence is ...
DTC Vs. DTC Security Staff Union Reg
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-2015
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The instant matter relates to pay-scales of posts in the Security Cadre of Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the DTC'). 2. The hierarchical structure of posts in the Security Cadre of DTC is as under:-Deputy Security OfficerIISecurity OfficerIIAssistant Security OfficerIISecurity HavaldarIISecurity Guard 3. In the seventies the workmen working in Security Cadre of DTC, through their Union: Delhi Transport Corporation Security Staff Union, raised a demand of parity of pay-scales with the employees of Delhi Police. The basis of claim was two-fold. Historically parity with the employees of Delhi Police and secondly on the principle of region-cumindustry formula. 4. The appropriate Government made following reference on October 24, 1979 to the Industrial Tribunal:- Whether the pay scales of the Security staff upto the rank of the Asstt. Security Inspector need to be revised, and, if so, what directions are necessary in this regard? ? 5. The Wo...
Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another Vs. R.K. Mahajan and O ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-2015
Common Judgment: G. Rohini, CJ. 1. By common order dated 21.04.2010, the learned Single Judge allowed W.P.(C) Nos.10426, 10442, 10443 of 2006 and W.P.(C) 3277 of 2007. Aggrieved by the same, the Life Insurance Corporation of India/the sole respondent therein preferred these four appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. The Respondents/Writ petitioners are the agents with the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short LIC'). By separate orders dated 24.11.2005, their agency was terminated by the LIC and renewal commission was forfeited in terms of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations'). Against the said orders of termination though the writ petitioners preferred appeals to the Zonal Manager, the same were rejected by orders dated 30.05.2006. Aggrieved by the same, they filed W.P.(C) Nos.10426, 10442, 10443 of 2006 and W.P.(C) No.3277 of 2007 contending inter alia that the orders of termination as well as ...
Commissioner of Income-tax - 3 Vs. Five Vision Promoters (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-2015
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. These are three appeals by the Appellant, Revenue, against the common order dated 29th April 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in ITA Nos. 4545, 4246 and 4247/Del/2012 for the Assessment Years ('AYs') 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. Limitation 2. Considering that the impugned order is dated 29th April 2014 and the appeals were first listed for hearing nearly a year later on 10th April 2015, the question whether the appeals were in time was examined by the Court. In para 8 of the memorandum of appeal in each of the appeals it is stated that the impugned order was received by the Appellant, i.e. the Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi -3 (CIT-3) on 24th November 2014. The affidavit in support of the appeal has been signed by Mr. Narendra Prasad Sinha, posted as CIT -3. 3. Enclosed with the memorandum of appeal, is a copy of the certified copy of the impugned order of ITAT which bears different date stamps. One of them is a date st...
Henna George Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-2015
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. 1. The petitioner, an Advocate practicing inter alia before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to flag the issues of the functioning of the BIFR having virtually come to an end owing to the vacancies in the office of the Members of the BIFR and which have not been filled up for long and which has resulted in enhancement of non-performing assets, scheme and for revival of distressed entities piling up, creditors of the sick companies being made to wait indefinitely etc. 2. The petition was entertained and the learned ASG asked to obtain instructions. A counter affidavit dated 10th February, 2015 was filed by the Director to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance informing that, (i) BIFR then was existing of three members, of which one had been authorized to act as Chairman; (ii) that the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Pro...
Amit Mahajan Vs. State of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-2015
Oral: Crl. M.A.No.17243/2015 (for exemption) Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application is allowed. CRL.M.C. No.4783/2015 1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.794/2008 registered at Police Station Prashant Vihar, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against him. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2, namely, Ms.Smriti Mahajan, consequent upon certain matrimonial and domestic disputes having arisen between the parties. After investigation, police has filed the chargesheet, charges have been framed and the case is pending for prosecution evidence. Meanwhile, the respondent No.2 and the petitioner have amicably settled their disputes before Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini District ...
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. and Others Vs. Cipla Ltd. and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-2015
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. and Mukta Gupta, J. 1. Though at first blush the plot and premise of the Roche Vs. Cipla dispute appears to be straightforward “ Roche claims that on March 31, 1991, it filed an application for grant of patent in USA pertaining to Erlotinib Hydrochloride, resulting in grant of patent US 498 on August 05, 1998. During pendency of its application in USA, on March 13, 1996 it filed an application in India for grant of patent for the same molecule which was granted to it vide IN 774 on February 23, 2007. The marketable physical form of the molecule comprised polymorph A and B. Further research revealed that polymorph B was more thermodynamic and as per Roche would qualify for enhanced efficacy and thus on November 09, 2000 it applied for grant of patent for polymorph B of Erlotinib Hydrochloride in USA resulting in grant of patent US 221. Similar application filed in India on February 06, 2002 i.e. DEL 507 was rejected. As per Roche, IN 774 granted in February 2...
N.K. Jain Vs. A. Rangaraj and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2015
CM(M) 1394/2011 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the concurrent judgment of the learned Additional Rent Controller dated 1st July, 2008 and Additional Rent Control Tribunal dated 18th November, 2011 by which the eviction petition filed by the respondent on the ground of sub-letting has been allowed in respect of the tenanted premises i.e. Shop No.106, First Floor, Mansarovar Building, 90, Nehru Place, New Delhi. 2. The respondents filed an eviction petition against the petitioner seeking eviction on the grounds of sub-letting under Section 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act. The eviction petition after trial was decreed in terms of the judgment by the learned ARC. The appeal preferred against the said judgment before the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal also failed. 3. Challenge by the petitioner to the impugned orders are interalia on following grounds:- (i) The petitioner N.K.Jain had taken the suit premises on rent vide l...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »