Delhi Court November 2015 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2015 Page 5 of about 129 results (0.022 seconds)Shilpi Thapar Vs. Manan Thapar
Court: Delhi
Open Court: 1. This petition seeks the setting aside of the order of 21st December, 2013 passed by the learned Guardian Judge (West), in G.P. No.53/2012. By way of the said order, interim custody of the child -- Master Siddhid, was directed to be handed over by the petitioner-mother to the respondent-father on 3rd January, 2014 till 6th January, 2014. The said order has become infructuous by virtue of subsequent orders of this Court and the interim custody and visitation rights were duly afforded to the parents in the interest of the child. On 2nd January, 2014 when the case was first listed in, the following order was passed the interest of the child on the: CM(M) No.1425/2013 and C.M.No.20801/2013(stay) 1. Issue notice, returnable on 3rd January, 2014. 2. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner states that the minor child Master Siddhid is 4 years old and presently is not keeping well as he has been suffering from viral fever and other cold related infections for...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Santosh Handloom Vs. The Commissioner of Customs (Import) and Oth ...
Court: Delhi
1. In this writ petition the principal grievance, which has been raised, is that, there has been a failure on the part of the respondents to comply with the statutory provisions of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short the Act). 1.1 The petitioner claims that the respondents have detained the imported goods beyond the period of six (6) months without issuing a show cause notice as contemplated under Section 110(2) of the Act. 1.2 The show cause notice and the order passed thereof by the respondents to demonstrate that they have taken recourse to the proviso appended to Section 110(2) of the Act, which enables triggering of an extended period of six (6) months, has no legal sanctity, according to the petitioner, for the following reasons: (i) Firstly, the show cause notice seeking extension of time for compliance of the requirements of Section 124 of the Act, is ante-dated. (ii) Secondly, the service of show cause notice effected on the Customs House Clearing Agent (in short...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Sanjiv Khanna, J. 1. Appellant Rajesh assails conviction for having committed the murder of his wife Sheela during the night intervening 12th and 13th March, 2008, in the rented accommodation consisting of a room located at A-714, Mangol Puri, Delhi. The impugned judgment dated 20th July, 2013, arises from charge-sheet filed in FIR No.137/2008 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short), registered at the police station Mangol Puri. By order on sentence dated 1st August, 2013, the appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life, fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment of six months. Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C., for short), it is observed, would apply. 2. Undisputed relevant facts may be first noticed and taken on record. The appellant accepts incontrovertible prosecution evidence on record that he had taken a room on rent in the aforesaid house from the landlady Geeta (PW1) and ther...
Tag this Judgment!J.P. Singh and Others Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Crl. M. (B) No.7747/2015 in CRL.A. 975/2015 Crl. M. (B) No.7765/2015 in CRL.A. 987/2015 Crl. M. (B) No.7973/2015 in CRL.A. 1087/2015 1. There are three appellants before this Court. Applicant J.P. Singh was the Director of M/s Sweka Power Tech Engineers Private Limited; Om Prakash Mahla was the Executive Engineer (Electrical)-V, MCD and Gurcharan Singh was the UDC (Tender Clerk) of the MCD. All three are convicts under Section 120-B//467/468/471 of the IPC and Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Convicts Om Prakash Mahla and Gurcharan Singh have been separately convicted for the substantive offence under Section 420 of the IPC. Each of them has been sentenced to undergo RI for a maximum period of 4 years besides fine for the separate convictions. Sentences were to run concurrently. 2. The nominal roll of the appellants has been requisitioned. Their nominal roll reflect that as on date, each of them has undergone incarceration of about 1 year and 2 months which includ...
Tag this Judgment!Khushwant Singh (Huf) and Others Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corp Ltd. and ...
Court: Delhi
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. CM 24859/2015 (application for impleadment) 1. This application for impleadment has been filed by Shree Rama Roadways, a transporter to whom a letter of intent has already been issued under the existing tender. The impleadment has been sought on the ground that the tender stipulates minimum monthly mileage per truck and the respondents without providing the minimum mileage to the existing TTs are calling for additional trucks and the requirement can be met from the existing TTs. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed to the tender conditions which stipulate that the range of mileage as mentioned in the tender document is purely indicative and depends on various factors like LPG availability at sources, demand fluctuations, turnaround of the trucks, commissioning of new plants, Supply Sources, Pipelines, railway sidings and alternative fuel etc. He further pointed to the tender stipulation that the corporation did not give any guarantee for Minimum mileag...
Tag this Judgment!ECE Industries Ltd. Vs. Delhi Power Supply Company Ltd and Others
Court: Delhi
Gita Mittal, J. (Oral): CM No.6791/2015 in EFA(OS) 11/2015 CM No.6892/2015 in EFA(OS) 12/2015 1. These applications are allowed. CM No.6788/2015 in EFA(OS) 11/2015 Heard. For the reasons stated, the delay in filing is condoned. The application is allowed in the above terms. EFA(OS)Nos.11and12/2015 2. Disputes arose between the appellant and the Delhi Vidyut Board. The same were referred for arbitration which proceedings culminated in an arbitral award dated 9th April, 2002which awarded amounts in favour of both parties. On 1st July, 2002 Delhi Vidyut Board unbundled into three holding companies, being Genco (Indraprastha Power Generation Company), Transco (earlier Delhi Power Supply Company Ltd. and three DISCOMS, being distribution companies which were i) BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., ii) BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. and iii) North Delhi Power Ltd. 3. In terms of the Award, respondent no.2-Delhi Power Company Ltd. made payment of Rs1,34,18,612.84 on 11th September, 2002 to the decree holder. On...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Bhatnagar Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
G.S. Sistani, J. (Oral) 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 15.07.2008. 2. The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed in the Railway Department on 05.01.1972 as a field worker in Medical Department of Western Railway, Jaipur. In the year 1989, the petitioner was transferred to the Rajkot Division. This order of transfer was challenged by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal stayed the order of transfer although subsequently in the year 1992 the OA filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was posted at the Railway Hospital, Bandikui, he became sick on 07.04.1992 and during the period of his sickness, the petitioner was transferred to Western Railway, Rajkot Division in the year 1992. The petitioner was able to resume his duties only on 28.11...
Tag this Judgment!In the Matter of: M/s. Cev Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Brij Mohan Punj
Court: Delhi
I.A. 11535/2015 (by the defendant, under Order VI Rule 17 CPC) 1. The present application has been filed by the defendant under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short Rs. the Code') praying inter alia for permission to amend the written statement and introduce a counter claim as proposed in paras 8 to 11 therein. 2. Before dealing with the respective submissions advanced by the counsels for the parties, a brief reference to the factual background of the case is necessary. 3. The plaintiff company(tenant) has filed the present suit on 21.5.2013, for seeking recovery of a sum of Rs. 42,10,000/- towards the security amount allegedly wrongfully withheld by the defendant(landlord), along with the pendente lite and future interest and for claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs. 4. Summons were issued in the suit on 24.5.2013, returnable on 28.11.2013. After the service of the summons, the defendant had filed the written statement on 6.9.2013 and the plaintiff had fil...
Tag this Judgment!Bal Kumar Vs. State Thr. Standing Counsel and Another
Court: Delhi
Oral: Crl. M.A.No.16957/2015 (for exemption) Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application is allowed. CRL.M.C. 4713/2015 1. Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks directions to quash the order dated 07.09.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No.30/2015 filed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner filed the aforesaid revision against the order dated 23.05.2015 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, JJB-II, Delhi, whereby date of birth of the respondent No.2 was determined as 08.02.1997 and he was declared a juvenile in conflict with law (JCL). By the same order, application of the petitioner for conducting medical age determination test of respondent No. 2 was dismissed. 3. The respondent No.2 has been accused of causing death of one Saurabh Rana. As alleged on 05.09.2014, respondent No.2 was driving a motorcycle bearing registration No.UP-15AU-9529 rashly and negligently and hit the deceased who was riding...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi
Court: Delhi
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 02.7.2013 and 24.7.2013 respectively wherein the appellant stood convicted under Sections 307/324 of the IPC. He had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 6 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 2 months for his conviction under Section 307 of the IPC. For his second conviction under Section 324 of the IPC he had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 15 days. Benefit of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. had been granted to the appellant. 2. Nominal roll of the appellant has been requisitioned. This reflects that as on date the appellant has undergone incarceration of 3 years and almost 6 months which includes the remissions earned by him. 3. The version of the prosecution is that on 03.6.2011 at about 7.00 p.m. when Azim (PW-2) was crossing gali No.8, Dharampura, G...
Tag this Judgment!