Delhi Court December 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.
Mohan Kukreja Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-2015
1. Instant revision petitions have been preferred by the petitioners to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 19.05.2007 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby they were ordered to be charged for commission of offences under Sections 420/468/471/120B IPC. The petitions are contested by the respondents. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. 2. At the outset, it may be mentioned that during arguments, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, stated that petitioners have opted not to challenge the impugned order under Section 471 IPC. Arguments were restricted / confined to challenge the correctness of the charges under Sections 420/468/120B IPC. Learned Senior Counsel would urge that ingredient of Sections 415 IPC and 468 IPC are not attracted in the instant case. There was no representationmade by the petitioners to respondents No.2 and 3 and no propertywhatsoever was delivered by them pursuant to that. Me...
Gaurav Jain Vs. Manish Kumar Garg and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-2015
Oral: 1. This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner, Gaurav Jain against the order dated 11.9.2014 in CS No.277/2008 titled Manish Kumar Garg vs. Gaurav Jain and Others by virtue of which the suit of the respondent/plaintiff under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was decreed. 2. In the revision petition, for the sake of convenience and clarity, the names of the parties shall be mentioned in response to their original status in the suit. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Manish Kumar Garg filed a suit bearing No.277/2008 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act seeking possession of property bearing No.2217-2218, ground floor, Dr. H.C. Saint Fountain, Chandni Chowk measuring 70 square yards. Initially, the suit was filed by him only against three defendants, namely, Gaurav Jain, Praful Mohan and Malti Mohan. Brijesh Jain and Pradeep Jain were added as parties to the suit later on as they were claiming to be the tenants having been inducted in the suit prope...
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-06 Vs. Nikki Drugs and Chemicals Pvt. L ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-2015
Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. The Revenue has filed these appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act') impugning a common order dated 29th October, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the ITAT') in a batch of two hundred and eighty-four appeals including ten appeals pertaining to the Assessee in respect of five Assessment Years ( ˜AY') being 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2008-09 and 2009-10. The aforesaid ten appeals included five appeals preferred by the Assessee and five appeals preferred by the Revenue. The said appeals, respectively, impugned five separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] “ all dated 22nd February, 2012 “ disposing of the respective appeals preferred by the Assessee against the assessment orders dated 31st December, 2010 passed in respect of the aforementioned AYs. 2. The Revenue has projected the following questions of law in each of the aforesaid appeals:- (i) Whether in...
Rabia @ Mamta and Another Vs. NCT of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-2015
Oral: 1. The Supreme Court in Sidhartha Vashisth alias Manu Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as (2010) 6 SCC 1 commenting on the necessity of insisting upon the fairness of investigation observed at paragraph 197 of the report:- 197. ......The criminal justice administration system in India places human rights and dignity for human life at a much higher pedestal. The investigation should be judicious, fair, transparent and expeditious to ensure compliance with the basic rule of law. These are the fundamental canons of our criminal jurisprudence and they are quite in conformity with the constitutional mandate contained in Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. ? 2. In Nirmal Singh Kahlon vs. State of Punjab and Others reported as (2009) 1 SCC 441 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that fairness of the investigation is meant not only for the accused but even for the victim. In paragraph 28 of the report the Supreme Court expounded:- 28. An accused is entitled to a fair inve...
DTC Vs. Rajender Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-2015
1. By virtue of this writ petition under Article 226 r/w Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing/setting aside of the impugned award dated 9th December, 2009 in ID No. 251/08/92 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, KKD Courts, Delhi. 2. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the workman') was working as a sweeper/cleaner with the petitioner/Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Corporation') since April, 1983. His services were terminated vide letter dated 6th July, 1990. As such, an industrial dispute was raised by him which was referred by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi to Labour Court vide reference No. F.24(938)/92-Lab./12378-83 dated 30th April, 1992 with following terms of reference:- Whether the removal of Sh. Rajender Kumar from service by the management is illegal and/or unjustified and if so to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect? ? 3. The workman filed a statement of claim all...
Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. Vs. Badri Dass Abbi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-2015
1. This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 impugns the judgment and decree dated 24th November, 2005 of the Court of Shri O.P. Gupta, Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi decreeing the suit No.247/2001 (Old No.4831/1991) of the respondents No.1 to 5/plaintiffs for recovery of mesne profits for use and occupation of property no.3, Panchsheel Shopping Complex, Panchsheel Colony, New Delhi jointly and severally against the appellant and the respondent no.6 National Building Construction Corporation Limited (NBCC) in the sum of Rs.19,43,040/-. 2. Notice of the appeal was issued. The respondent no.6 NBCC upon service of the notice filed CM No.5981/2006 by way of cross objections/cross appeal, notice whereof was also issued. 3. The counsel for the respondent no.6 NBCC on 28th April, 2006, in the absence of the counsel for the appellant or the counsel for the respondents no.1 to 5/plaintiffs, stated that the respondent no.6 NBCC had already paid half of the m...
Chitra Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-2015
Oral: 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated October 12, 2015, whereby the petitioner, who was working as a Superintendent, Central Warehouse, Kirti Nagar was transferred to Regional Office, Jaipur. 2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the transfer order has been effected with the mala-fide intention. He would state, the petitioner had initially raised an issue of sexual harassment, which was forced to be withdrawn by the respondents. He also states that the petitioner had made a detailed representation, which was forwarded by the Regional Manager to the Corporate Office but has not been considered and replied till date. That apart, it is his case that the respondent No. 3, who had a grudge against the petitioner, has downgraded her appraisal reports/ACRs. That apart, it is the case of the petitioner, that assuming that the transfer order has been effected for certain misconduct, the same could not have been issued without holding...
State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and Another Vs. Rupak Rana and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2015
1. The present petitions have been filed under Section 439(2) r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred as Cr P C'). Vide Crl.MC No.2392/2015, petitioner/ State seeks direction thereby quashing/setting aside the order dated 02.03.2015 whereby learned Trial Court granted bail to respondent Rupak Rana accused in case FIR No. 246/2014 registered at PS Alipur under sections 302/34 IPC and Section 25/27/30 Arms Act pending trial against him. The complainant Rajpal Rana/petitioner in Crl.MC No.3322/2015 has also confined to the same relief sought by the State in Crl.MC 2392/2015, therefore, both these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Learned APP for the petitioner/State submitted that counsel for the respondent/accused argued before the trial court that role assigned to the respondent/accused is only after firing incident and accordingly he has been impleaded merely with the aid of Section 34 IPC. Learned...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-1 Vs. Vishnu and Co. Pvt. Ltd. a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2015
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. CM APPL No. 11312/2014 (for delay) in CEAC 62/2014 CM APPL No. 16426/2014 (for delay) in CEAC 73/2014 CM APPL No. 16497/2014 (for delay) in CEAC 74/2014 CM APPL No. 16499/2014 (for delay) in CEAC 75/2014 CM APPL No. 16502/2014 (for delay) in CEAC 76/2014 CM APPL No. 16505/2014 (for delay) in CEAC 77/2014 CM APPL No. 16500/2014 (for delay) in CEAC 78/2014 CM APPL No. 16511/2014 (for delay) in CEAC 79/2014 CM APPL No. 16514/2014 (for delay) in CEAC 80/2014 CM APPL No. 16517/2014 (for delay) in CEAC 81/2014 CM APPL No. 16521/2014 (for delay) in CEAC 82/2014 CM APPL No. 16523/2014 (for delay) in CEAC 83/2014 CM APPL No. 16527/2014 (for delay) in CEAC 84/2014 CM APPL No. 16530/2014 (for delay) in CEAC 85/2014 CM APPL No. 16533/2014 (for delay) in CEAC 86/2014 CM APPL No. 16536/2014 (for delay) in CEAC 87/2014 CM APPL No. 16539/2014 (for delay) in CEAC 88/2014 CM APPL No. 16542/2014 (for delay) in CEAC 89/2014 CM APPL No. 16550/2014 (for delay) in CEAC 90/2014 1. For th...
M/s. National Building Construction Corporation Limited Vs. New Delhi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2015
Oral: O.M.P. No.235/2007 1. This is a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') filed by the petitioner M/s National Building Construction Corporation Limited (NBCC Ltd) (Contractor) impugning the Award passed by the Arbitrator dated 27.01.2007 limited to the aspects of the Arbitrator by the impugned Award allowing counter claim nos.2 and 4 filed by the respondent no.1 herein. 2. The facts of the case are that parties entered into a contract whereby the petitioner was to construct for the respondent no.1 Blocks B and C of New Delhi City Centre Phase-II. The salient dates with respect to the contract in question have been noted in the impugned Award as under:- Salient features of the case: (a) Estimated cost put to tender: Rs. 23,64,25,882/- (b) Tendered amount: Rs.23,80,81,978/- (c) Date of acceptance: 18.08.1994 (d) Period of completion: 3 years (e) Stipulated date of start: 02.09.1994 (f) Stipulated date of completio...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »