Delhi Court November 2015 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2015 Page 6 of about 129 results (0.023 seconds)Vineesh Kumar and Another Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and An ...
Court: Delhi
Suresh Kait, J. (Oral) Crl. M.A.No.16905/2015 (for exemption) Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application is allowed. CRL.M.C. 4708/2015 1. By way of the present petition, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.357/2014 registered at Police Station Mandir Marg, New Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC against them. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2, namely, Ms. Radhika due to the matrimonial disputes. Thereafter, the parties have entered into a settlement before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 19.05.2015. As per the settlement, petitioners agreed to pay an amount of Rs.3,75,000/- to the respondent no. 2 as full and final settlement. Out of which Rs.1,25,000/- has already been paid at the time of recording of first motion on 14.07.2015 and thereafter, respondent n...
Tag this Judgment!Shahjahan and Others Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Sanjiv Khanna, J. 1. By the judgment under challenge dated 11th September, 2014, the appellants Shahjahan, Sikandar and Rashid have been convicted (i) under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) for murder of Aziz-ul-Hassan @ Munna and Reshma; (ii) under section 307 read with Section 34 IPC for having caused stab injuries on Nadeem, Musharraf, Sharafat and Ishrat Ali; and (iii) under section 452 read with Section 34 IPC for having trespassed in house No.2066, Gali No.21, New Mustafabad, Delhi, having made preparation for causing hurt and assaulting Musharraf and others. 2. By the impugned order on sentence dated 20.9.2014, the three appellants have been sentenced to life imprisonment, fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. It is directed that out of the fine amount, Rs.10,000/- will be paid to the victims as compensation. For the offence u...
Tag this Judgment!IFCI Factors Ltd. Vs. Maven Industries Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
Oral: 1. Plaintiff who is the lender/creditor has filed this suit for recovery of Rs.10,45,05,890.43/- against three defendants. Defendant no.1 is the principal borrower company and the defendant nos.2 and 3 are the guarantors. 2. In terms of the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff in terms of an agreement for factoring of receivables lent an amount of Rs.4.98 crores under the subject Agreement dated 28.1.2011 which was for domestic factoring upto a limit of Rs.5 crores. The working of the factoring agreement is that the defendant no.1 is supplier of goods and when it supplies goods to a third party, such third party is liable to make the payment for the goods supplied to the defendant no.1, but such third party instead of making the payment to the defendant no.1 will make the payment to the plaintiff which has lent the amount to the defendant no.1 under the Agreement for Factoring of Receivables dated 28.1.2011. Effectively, the plaintiff discounts the bills which are raised b...
Tag this Judgment!Anup Joshi Vs. State
Court: Delhi
R.K. Gauba, J. 1. On 28.06.1996, Anju Mehta, wife of the appellant, aged about 23 years suffered homicidal death some time before 8.45 AM in a tenanted room in occupation and use as residence of the couple in House no.159, Village Dhaka within the jurisdiction of Police Station Mukherjee Nagar ( the police station ?). Around the same time and at the same place, the appellant also suffered, amongst others, three clean incised wounds near umbilicus over the abdominal region causing the omentum (fold of peritoneum connecting stomach with other viscera) to come out. The first information report (FIR) (Ex.PW-10/A), registered at 12.05 PM by head constable Kamini (PW-10) on 28.06.1996, on the basis of rukka (Ex.PW-11/A) sent by head constable Satyabir Singh (PW-11), founded on the statement of Devender Kumar (PW-9), a neighbour, resulted in investigation and report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) dated 23.09.1996 being submitted. It led to the appellant being p...
Tag this Judgment!Johnson and Johnson Ltd. Vs. Weights and Measures Department and Anoth ...
Court: Delhi
Oral: 1. The petitioner has challenged the summoning order dated 6th July, 2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in a complaint under Sections 39/63 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. The petitioner is also seeking quashing of the criminal complaint No.CC 389/1W/11. 2. On 26th February, 2011, the Inspector, Legal Metrology visited the shop of GKB Lens Pvt. Ltd. at Saket and found packets of contact lenses imported and marketed by the petitioner on which the printed Maximum Retail Price (MRP) was deleted with a permanent marker in black colour and the price of Rs.1400/- was over-written. The Inspector, Legal Metrology prepared an inspection report/ memo in which he noted the violation of MRP and overcharge of the price. 3. On 18th April, 2011, the Inspector Legal Metrology issued a notice to GKB Lens Pvt. Ltd. as well as the petitioner to notify the breach of Sections 33/39 of the Standards of Weight and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 punishable under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Banyan Tree Holdings (P) Limited Vs. Jamshyad Sethna and Another
Court: Delhi
1. By way of this order, I propose to decide the following applications filed by the parties: i. I.A. No.12577/2007, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, filed by the plaintiff; ii. I.A. No.12925/2015, under Section 24 CPC, filed by the plaintiff; iii. I.A. No.16501/2015, under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, filed by the defendant; and iv. I.A. No.2072/2009, under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, filed by the defendant. 2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining passing off, unfair competition, dilution of trademark, rendition of accounts of profits, delivery up, damages, etc. against the defendants. I.A. No.12577/2007(u/o XXXIX R.1 and 2 CPC) 3. The abovementioned application has been filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking ad-interim injunction. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is a Company publicly listed, organized and existing under the laws of Singapore having its registered office at 211, Upper ...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
1. The petition was filed impleading Union of India (UOI), Land and Development Officer (LandDO) and M/s New United Service Station as respondents no.1,2and3 respectively thereto and seeking the reliefs of (i) directing the respondents No.1and2 UOI/LandDO to allot alternative site to re-site the Petrol Filling-cum-Service Station operating under the name and style of M/s New United Service Station at Ring Road, opposite Bhikaji Cama Place near R.K. Puram, New Delhi to any other site and not to dispossess the petitioner from the said site till alternate site is allotted; and, (ii) impugning the demand raised by the respondent no.2 LandDO vide Notices dated 11th October, 2013 and 23rd July, 2013 with respect to the said site towards ground rent, damages for unauthorised construction, misuse charges and interest thereon, for the period from 1977 to 2012. 2. It was inter alia the case in the petition that:- A. the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner, a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU), w...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Singh Market and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
1. Neither the counsel for the petitioners nor the counsel for the respondent No.3 Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (DMRC) are present. Non-maincounsels appearing on behalf of both have no instructions or knowledge of the facts of the case and merely seek a pass-over. 2. The matter is unlikely to reach if passed over. The petition being old, cannot be adjourned. The file has been perused with the assistance of the counsel for the respondents No.1and4 Union of India (UOI) and the counsel for the respondent No.7 South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC). None appears for the respondents No.2, 6 and 8 Govt. of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD), Deputy Commissioner of Police and Central Public Works Department (CPWD) also. The counsel for the respondent UOI states that he has no instruction from the respondent No.8 CPWD. 3. The petitioner No.1 is claims to be an Association of 30 shopkeepers of Mohan Singh Automobile Market, INA, New Delhi, stated to be having in all 48 shops; the remaining shops are s...
Tag this Judgment!Setu Niket Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
G. Rohini, CJ. 1. This petition by way of Public Interest Litigation is filed with the following prayers:- (a) to quash Section 129 of the Railways Act, 1989 as ultra vires Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution; (b) to quash the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules, 1999 providing for Rs.4,00,000/- as the maximum amount of compensation in case of death or permanent disability; (c) to direct the Respondents to appoint a committee of experts including members of Respondent No.2 and other independent experts to formulate proper policy or standard to determine compensation till the same is formulated by the Parliament. ? 2. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 3. The Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') has been enacted repealing the Indian Railways Act, 1890. Chapter XIII of the Act, comprising Sections 123 to 129, deals with the liability of Railway Administration for death and injury to passengers due to accidents. Section 1...
Tag this Judgment!Riviera Home Furnishing Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Range 15
Court: Delhi
S. Muralidhar, J. 1. The present appeal by the Appellant Assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act ( ˜Act') is directed against the impugned order dated 27th February 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ˜ITAT') in ITA No.1191/Del/2012 for the Assessment Year ( ˜AY') 2008-09. 2. Admit. 3. The following questions of law are framed for consideration: (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, ITAT is correct in law in not allowing the exemption of Rs.28,27,224/-, on account of customer claim, ignoring the express provision of Section 10B (4) of the Act, whereby profit of business of the undertaking are eligible for deduction. (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, ITAT is correct in law in not allowing the exemption of Rs.29,24,405/- on account of freight subsidy, ignoring the express provision of section l0B(4) of the Act, whereby profit of business of the undertaking are eligible for deduction. (iii) Whether in the ...
Tag this Judgment!