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.
Pradip Burman Vs. Income Tax Office
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2015
CRL.M.C. 2467/2015 1. The present petition has been directed against the order dated 19.02.2015, whereby the application of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. 2. Vide the aforesaid application, the petitioner sought staying of the criminal proceedings against him on the ground that against the Assessment Order ( ˜AO'), the petitioner had already filed an appeal, which is pending for adjudication. 3. Mr. Ganesh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the complaint case filed by the respondent/Income Tax Department is liable to be quashed on the ground that at the time of filing of the criminal complaint, the petitioner had attained the age of 70 years, thus, no prosecution can be initiated against him. 4. In support of the aforenoted submission, learned senior counsel has heavily relied upon the case bearing Criminal Revision Petition No.36/2011, titled a...
Sunita Rekhi and Another Vs. Y.D. Puri and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2015
1. By way of this order, I propose to decide the abovementioned application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC filed on behalf of defendant No.2 Mrs.Raj Puri who is the wife of Late Sh.Y.D. Puri who expired on 25th November, 2009 during the pendency of the suit. 2. Plaintiff No.1, Mrs.Sunita Rekhi is the daughter of defendant No.2/applicant who filed the suit seeking partition, declaration and permanent injunction. The claim in the plaint is that the three properties as referred to in the plaint belong to Joint Hindu Family and as such, the plaintiffs are entitled to relief for partition of the subject properties. The defendants No.3 and 4 are the sons of defendants No.1 and 2 and defendant No.5 is also the daughter. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing their written statements. It is submitted that joint written statement was filed on behalf of defendant Nos.1 and 2 which was duly signed by them. Paras 4, 5 and 6 of the joint written statement filed by t...
S. Gulshanjit Singh Vs. Jaswinder Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2015
1. This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 impugns the judgment and decree dated 27th January, 2006 of the Court of Shri Babu Lal, Additional District Judge (ADJ) Delhi decreeing the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for recovery of monies from (i) Shri Jaswinder Singh; (ii) Mrs. Surinder Kaur; (iii) Mrs. Anina Kuku; and, (iv) M/s Sabina International Hotel against the defendants/respondents no.2and3 Mrs. Surinder Kaur/Mrs. Anina Kuku only and dismissing the same as far as against the respondents/defendants no.1and4 i.e. Shri Jaswinder Singh and M/s Sabina International Hotel. 2. Notice of the appeal was issued. None appeared on behalf of the respondents/defendants despite service. Accordingly, all the four respondents/defendants were proceeded ex parte on 6th October, 2006 and the appeal admitted for hearing. The appellant/plaintiff applied for early hearing pleading his old age and which application came up before this Court yesterday when the same...
Pradeep @ Balli Vs. State, NCT of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2015
1. Aggrieved by a judgment dated 15.05.2013 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.06/13 arising out of FIR No. 80/09 PS Mangol Puri by which the appellant “ Pradeep @ Balli was convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 458/376/328/506-II IPC and Section 25 Arms Act, the instant appeal has been preferred by him. By an order dated 16.05.2013, he was awarded various prison terms with fine. All the substantive sentences were to operate concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the chargesheet was that in February, 2009 and on 06.03.2009 at House No.A-9A, Awantika Enclave, Mangol Puri, Delhi, the appellant after committing house tress-pass and putting the prosecutrix X(assumed name) aged around 16 years in fear committed rape upon her. On 11.04.2009, a country-made pistol loaded with a live cartridge lying in a car bearing No. DL-6CG-0079 parked in front of his flat No.607, pocket-A, Sector-6, Narela was recovered at his inst...
M/s. KRBL Ltd. Vs. Lal Mahal Ltd. and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2015
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. 1. The appellant impugns order dated 20.03.2015 whereby the application of the appellant under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) has been dismissed. 2. The appellant, who is the plaintiff, filed the suit for permanent injunction, restraining, infringement, passing off of the appellant's mark India Gate by the respondent (defendant in the suit), who is using the mark Church Gate ?. The appellant in the suit claimed a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondent from using the word/mark/label with the device of Gate alleging it to be deceptively similar to the word/mark/label of the appellant's mark India Gate or the device of India Gate in relation to goods and processing of rice and allied/cognate goods. 3. As per the appellant, the predecessor of the appellant M/s Khushi Ram Bihari Lal adopted the mark India Gate with the device of India Gate and has been exporting rice to foreign countries since 1993 and has built up its ...
Simmi Grover and Others Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2015
Oral: CRL.M.C. 4439/2015 1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioners seek directions thereby quashing of FIR No.299/2011 registered at Police Station K.N. Katju Marg, Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC against them. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by respondent No.2, namely, Ms. Roopali Kapoor, which culminated into the FIR mentioned above. Thereafter, the petitioners and respondent no. 2 entered into an agreement dated 16.08.2013 and agreed to remain bound by the same. As per the settlement, petitioners agreed to deposit an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as full and final settlement to the Corporation Bank, Tilak Nagar Branch towards loan account of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 being no. LICS/1/911297. Out of the settlement amount, petitioner no.4 was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- a...
M/s. Sound Craft and Others Vs. Madhu Mala Properties Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2015
Oral: 1. These are four revision petitions filed against the order dated 13.4.2015. The facts in all the four matters are almost similar and the respondent/landlord is also the same. The eviction order has been passed on the ground that the leave to defend application was not filed within the statutory period of 15 days. For the sake of convenience, facts of one case bearing RC. Revision No.342/2015 are given. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent is claiming itself to be a limited company, who had authorized one M.G. Aggarwal through their Board Resolution to file an eviction petition in respect of property No.13, Daryaganj, New Delhi which was under the occupation of the present petitioner/tenant, more particularly, shown in red colour in the site plan. Similar other portions of the same property were also under the occupation of the other petitioners which are not in dispute. It has been stated that as per the report of the process server, the petitioners/tenants were ...
V.K. Aggarwal and Others Vs. Chairman and M.D, IRCTC and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2015
1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs: (i) allow the Writ Petition with costs; (ii) Issue an Order or direction or Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to discharge their statutory liability for payment of Pension/family pension to petitioner absorbees with all consequential retirement benefits to which they are entitled on their superannuation/retirement by counting the service rendered by them in the Railways and combining the total service rendered by them in the Railways and in the IRCTC for the purpose of pensionary benefits in terms of the terms and conditions of their service and the provisions contained in Rule 53A of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 by creating Pension Fund without any further delay; (iii) to issue order or direction for any further consequential relief to the petitioners. 2. Some of the relevant facts are, the petitioners were appointed in the Catering Department of the Indian Railways in th...
Kiran Arora Vs. The Registrar Co-Operative Societies and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2015
Gita Mittal, J. (Oral)1. The facts giving rise to the instant petition are within the narrow compass and to the extent necessary are noted hereunder. One Smt. Shanti Devi applied for the membership of Jyoti Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as society') 2. On 1st April, 1979, Smt. Shanti Devi made a payment of Rs.110/- for the membership of respondent No.2-society. Smt. Shanti Devi was inducted as an original member of the respondent-society and a share certificate was duly issued to her on 25th March, 1980. 3. Unfortunately, Smt. Shanti Devi expired on 30th January, 1987. So far as the relationship of the petitioner with Smt. Shanti Devi is concerned, it is submitted that she is the child of the daughter of Smt. Shanti Devi namely Smt. Naresh Kumari. The petitioner/Ms. Kiran Arora is thus the grand-daughter of Smt. Shanti Devi. 4. We are informed that Smt. Naresh Devi was the only child of Late Smt. Shanti Devi. Inasmuch as, the siblings of the present...
Jaideep Seth Vs. Urmila Seth and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2015
IA No.11208/2015 (u/O. XXIII R.3 CPC read with Section 89(2)(C) and Section 151 CPC 1. This application by plaintiff and defendant No.2 under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 89(2) and Section 151 CPC seeks disposal of the suit in terms of a family settlement dated 10.05.2015 authored by a Mediator. The application has been signed by the plaintiff and defendant No.2 and is supported by their corresponding affidavits. 2. It is their case that the lis was referred to the learned Mediator for arriving at a settlement between the parties. Due consent had been given by all the parties to the suit who are claiming their shares in the estate of late Mr. Prem Seth. Relevant electronics mails from all the parties are attached to the application including the consent dated 17.03.2015 from defendant No.1 Mrs. Urmila Seth, widow of late Mr. Prem Seth, a portion of which reads as under: ........I want to say that from my side there is an unconditional acceptance of the decision given by you for...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »