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.
Madhu Ghanshyam Hingorani Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2015
BACKGROUND: 1. This is a statutory appeal filed against the judgment of the District Judge dated 11.08.2006. The learned District Judge vide the impugned judgment has dismissed the appellant's petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (in short the Act) for grant of probate of Will dated 14.03.1996 [in short the Will (Ex.PW4/A)] said to be executed by Late Ms. Vidya Revachand Hingorani (in short the testatrix). 1.1 The testatrix expired on 11.09.1997. Upon the testatrix's death, the appellant instituted the petition under Section 276 of the Act, on 24.12.1999. Apart from the State, which was impleaded as respondent no.1 to the said petition, there were 9, other respondents, who were arrayed as parties to the probate action. While respondent no.2 to 8 are the siblings of the deceased testatrix, respondent no.9 is the purchaser of the Property Bearing no.101, G Block, Saket, New Delhi, admeasuring 250.8 sq. meters (in short the Saket property), which is a subject matt...
Suresh Kumar and Another Vs. State N.C.T. of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2015
Oral: CRL.A. 603/2002 and CRL.A. 625/2002 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.06.2002 and 07.06.2002 respectively passed by the then learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 41/99, by which both the appellants, i.e., Suresh and Harish Kumar, were held guilty and convicted under Sections 395 and 397 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( ˜IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 398 IPC, in default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. Since, both these appeals have arisen out of the same judgment, therefore, both appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 3. Brief facts for the disposal of the present appeals are that on the statement Ex. PW2/A of Nisha Gupta (PW2), Investigating Officer/SI Subhash Malik (PW19) made an endorsem...
Shaukat and Another Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2015
Sanjiv Khanna, J. 1. Lakhinder and Shaukat by the impugned judgment dated 28th January, 2012 have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) for having committed murder and dacoity on Dina Nath at about 4.50 A.M near Shiv Mandir, Tulsi Nagar. Lakhinder has also been convicted under Section 412 IPC. By the order on sentence dated 31st January, 2012, the appellants have been sentenced to imprisonment for life, fine of Rs.10,000/- each and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 396 IPC. However, the impugned order on sentence records that, in view of the provisions of Section 71 IPC, no separate sentence was imposed for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and, in the case of Lakhinder, for the offence under Section 412 IPC (we have merely reproduced the order on sentence and are not commenting on the same). 2. There is ample evi...
Swarn Lata Agarwal and Another Vs. M/s. Narang Medicine Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2015
CS(OS) 2731/2012 and IA No.10420/2013 1. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of possession and ejectment against the defendant/partners of defendant in respect of suit property Shop No.25, situated in property No.1520/II, Ground Floor, Bhagirath Palace, Chandani Chowk, Delhi. Relief of damages and mesne profits for the period April 2012 to August 2012 are also sought. 2. As per the averments in the plaint the plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner of the suit property and the owner and landlord. The defendant is described as a trespasser. Hence, the present suit for eviction. 3. The property was originally said to be owned by M/s. Munnalal Ram Richpal a registered partnership firm which had let out the property to the defendant for commercial use at a monthly rent of Rs.136/- per month. Due to subsequent sale, the property stood transferred to M/s. Sudhir Kumar Garg, Adhir Kumar Garg and Praveen Kumar and Sons. The said persons sold the property to Mrs.Meeru ...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Gulab Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2015
Sunita Gupta, J. 1. The challenge in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is for setting aside the impugned award dated 07.04.2011 passed by POLC “ VII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in ID No.382/98/2010. 2. The brief facts as borne out from the record is that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the workman') was appointed as driver with effect from 02.09.1998 with the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the corporation'). He availed excessive leaves during the period 1989 to 1993 for the period ranging 63 days in the year 1990, 81 days in the year 1991 and 129 days in the year 1992. He was cautioned in the year 1990 for remaining absent from his duties for 14 days and for which a punishment was also awarded for reduction in one increment. The workman was issued charge-sheet dated 19.03.1993 for remaining unauthorizedly absent with effect from 22.11.1992 to 03.12.1992 without any prior information and permission of the competent authority thus a...
Jaswant Alias Kale and Another Vs. State (Govt. of NCT) of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2015
1. These appeals filed by appellants Jaswant @ Kale and Jainul Umar have assailed the judgment and order on sentence dated 28.02.2013 and 08.3.2013 respectively wherein the appellants stood convicted under Sections 392/34 of the IPC read with Section 397 of the IPC. Each of them have been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for a period of 6 months. 2. Nominal roll of the appellants have been requisitioned. The nominal roll of Jaswant as on date reflects that he has undergone incarceration of almost 5years and 3 months which includes remissions earned by him. So also the nominal roll of Jainul Umar reflects that he has also undergone incarceration of the same period. Their jail conducts are satisfactory. 3. The version of the prosecution was unfolded in the testimony of the complainant Madhusudan (PW-1) who has stated that on 02.6.2011 at about 9.00 “ 9.15 p.m. while he was about to close h...
Kundan Singh Vs. The State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2015
Sanjiv Khanna, J. 1. In this appeal, Kundan Singh challenges judgment dated 18th January, 2014, passed in S.C. No.32/2008 arising out of charge sheet filed in FIR No.592/07, Police Station Mehrauli, convicting him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) for murder of his friend Vipin Kumar. The appellant has also been convicted under Section 201 and 404 IPC. 2. By order on sentence dated 21st January, 2014, the appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life, fine of Rs 15,000/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC with a direction that in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year. For the offence under Section 201 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of seven years, fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months. For the offence under Section 404 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to three yearsrigorous imprisonment and a ...
M/s. Classic Engineering Co. and Others Vs. The Commissioner of Sales ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2015
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. These are nine appeals under Section 81 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 ( ˜DVAT Act') filed against a common majority order dated 19th September 2012 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Value Added Tax, Delhi ( ˜Tribunal') arising under similar facts and circumstances. In all these appeals the following substantial question of law arises for consideration and were framed by the order dated 21st August 2013: (i) Whether the majority decision is right in holding that the appellant is not entitled to benefit of Form ST 35 for the sales made to buyers outside Delhi, which has resulted in enhancement of turnover? 2. In STA Nos. 1, 3, 17, 18 and 24 of 2013 the following further question was framed for consideration: (ii) Whether the majority opinion was right in holding that the levy of penalty and/or interest under Section 56 of the Delhi Sales Act, 1975 was just and proper? ? 3. In STA Nos. 1, 5, 6, 17 and 24 of 2013 the following additional questi...
Director of Income Tax Vs. Royal Jordanian Airlines
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2015
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. ITA No. 159 of 2002 is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 2nd November 2001 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ˜ITAT') in ITA Nos.790-794/Del/96 for Assessment Years ('AYs') 1989-90 to 1993-94. 2. ITA No.278 of 2006 by the Assessee, Royal Jordanian Airlines ( ˜RJA') is directed against the order dated 31st August 2005 of the ITAT in ITA No. 1786/De/2000 for the AY 1996-97, ITA No. 279 of 2006 by RJA is directed against the order dated 31st August 2005 of the ITAT in ITA No.5252/Del/98 for the AY 1995-96, ITA No. 280 of 2006 by RJA is directed against the order dated 31st August 2005 of the ITAT in ITA No. 4670/Del/03 for the AY 2000-01 and ITA No. 580 of 2006 by RJA is against the order dated 31st August 2005 of the ITAT in ITA No. 3805/Del/99 for the AYs 1994-95. 3. Apart from the above appeals, two writ petitions have been filed by RJA, i.e., W.P.(C) No.16060 of 2006 and W.P.(C) No. 16068 of 2006, in which notices dated 27th Febr...
Cipla Limited and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2015
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. (Oral) 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the writ petitions as well as on the pending applications. Initially, the grievance of the petitioners was with regard to the proviso to paragraph 13 (1), Proviso to paragraph 24(1) and part of paragraph 16(4) of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as DPCO, 2013'). There was also a challenge to the notification dated 26.06.2013. 2. The focus of the petitions was on the drugs manufactured prior to the date of the notification for which a new and lower ceiling price had been prescribed. In this connection, one of the counter-affidavits filed in WP(C) 4888/2013 (Micro Labs Limited and Another v. Union of India and Others) is relevant. The stand taken by the respondents was indicated in paragraph 53 thereof as under:- 53. It is submitted that the manufacturers are required to issue price lists in accordance with paragraph 24 of the DPCO, 2013. As aforementioned, in implementatio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »