Delhi Court February 2016 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M/s. Roots Industries India Ltd. Vs. M/s. Airports Authority of India ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-2016
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the decisions dated 10.04.2015 of the Respondent No. 1 Airports Authority of India rejecting the petitioners bid submitted in response to NIT No. 01/2015 for supply and maintenance of 7700 trolleys and the award thereof to Respondent No. 2 Gilco Exports Limited and further for a mandamus to award the tender to the petitioner. 2. On 14.01.2015, Respondent No. 1 issued e-Tender NIT No 01/2015, inviting bids for contract of manufacturing, supply and comprehensive maintenance of 7700 passenger baggage trolleys (stainless steel -type) for various airports. 3. The Petitioner (Roots Industries Ltd) along with Respondent 2 (M/s Gilco Exports Limited) and Respondent No. 3 (M/s Malke Radiators Private Limited) submitted their bids. All the three bidders were found to be qualified at the Pre-Qualification stage. The technical bids were opened on 05.03.2015. The technical bids were evaluated by the Technical ...
Kailash Nagar Vs. Karan Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-2016
Oral: The appellant, then aged 34 years, had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that occurred at about 8.45 p.m. on 17.11.2005 at bus stand of Sikandra Road, Mandi House, New Delhi upon being hit by bus of Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) bearing registration No. DL1PB 1714 (the offending vehicle) statedly driven by the first respondent herein, it being admittedly insured against third party risk by the third respondent herein. He filed claim petition seeking compensation, inter alia, claiming that he had suffered disability to the extent more than 70 %, on account of amputation of the right lower limb below knee. The claim petition was registered by the motor accident claims tribunal (the tribunal) as suit No. 91/2006 and decided by judgment dated 3rd December, 2008 awarding compensation in the sum of Rs. 6,04,720/-0 with interest @ 7 % per annum computed as under:- Compensation on account of pain and sufferingRs. 50,000/-Compensation on account of medicines, Medical tr...
Pratibha Pande and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2016
1. The petition impugns the Minutes of the Meeting held on 24th September, 2015 of the respondent No.3 the Local Level Committee (LLC), New Delhi (South District) constituted under Section 13 of the National Trust for the Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 (National Trust Act) rejecting the application of the petitioner no.2 Ms. Madhvi Pande for appointment as guardian of her mother i.e. the petitioner no.1 herein on the ground that the respondent No.4 Govind Ballabh Pant Hospital, New Delhi had clarified that the petitioner No.1 cannot be categorized as a person suffering from multiple disabilities under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (Disabilities Act) read with National Trust Act. 2. It is the case of the petitioners: (i) that the petitioners no.1 aged about 60 years, was married to one Mr. Jyoti Swarup Pande and from which marriage has two ...
Rustagi Engineering Udyog (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2016
Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. These petitions have been filed by M/s Ess Aar Universal (P) Ltd (hereafter the 'Petitioner'), inter alia, impugning the notices issued by the Assessing Officer (hereafter 'AO') under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter 'the Act') for re-opening the assessments to re-assess M/s Rustagi Engineering Udyog Private Limited (hereafter the 'Assessee') in respect of income for the Assessment Years ('AYs') 1989-90 to 1993-94. 2. W.P. (C) 1289/1999, W.P.(C) 1290/1999, W.P. (C) 1293/1999 and W.P. (C) 1291/1999 have been filed impugning separate notices dated 26th December, 1997 in respect of AY 1990-91, 1991-92, 1989-90 and 1992-93 respectively. W.P. (C) 1292/1999 has been filed impugning a notice dated 9th July, 1997 for AY 1993-94. The issues involved in the present Petitions are similar and, therefore, have been heard together. 3. The principal controversy involved in the present petition is whether notices under Section 148 could be issued to the Assessee a...
Sarita Jain Vs. Master Rishabh Jain and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2016
Oral: 1. Present Revision Petition has been preferred by the petitioner-Sarita Jain to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 26.02.2014 of learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Courts, Dwarka, whereby she was ordered to pay maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. @ Rs. 1,000/- each to both the respondents from the date of filing of the petition till the age of majority. The revision petition is contested by the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is unsustainable as the petitioner, being mother, is not liable to pay maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to her children. Section 125 Cr.P.C. fastens the liability to maintain children only upon the father. It is submitted that in Section 125 Cr.P.C. the word his has been used by the legislature and Clause (b) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. specifically mentions his legitimate or illegitimate minor child and first proviso to Section 125 Cr.P.C. m...
Union of India and Another Vs. Gulab Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 2nd July, 2014 of the District Judge (Hqs.) Delhi allowing the appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act) being PPA “ 7/2013 (Unique Case ID No.02401C0076392013) filed by the respondent by setting aside the order dated 6th February, 2013 of the Estate Officer under Section 5(1) of the Act of eviction of the respondent from the premises comprising of two rooms, kitchen-cum-godown, verandah, bathroom and toilet in Old Hostel (Hostel no.1) and one room and kitchen in the New Hostel (Hostel no.2) of petitioner No.2 National Institute of Communicable Diseases now known as National Center for Disease Control 22, Sham Nath Marg, Delhi and remanding the matter to the Estate Officer for adjudication afresh. 2. Notice of the petition was issued and though an opportunity of filing reply was sought by the respondent and granted but no reply was fi...
Sant Ram Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
Mukta Gupta, J. 1. Based on the testimony of Bachha Lal PW-2, Sant Ram has been convicted for murder of Manoj vide the impugned judgment dated September 27, 2000 and awarded imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC vide the order on sentence of even date. 2. An information was received at PS Geeta Colony on July 16, 1997 at about 6.05 PM recorded vide DD No.25A from one Bansi Lal informing that in his factory two workers were fighting, one worker had received many injuries and had been taken to Asija Nursing Home. On receipt of DD No.25A HC Shyam Singh went to Asija Nursing Home along with Ct.Sri Krishan where he came to know that the injured had been taken to JPN Hospital. He collected the MLC of injured Manoj which noted that injured was unfit for statement. On reaching JPN Hospital, Ct.Nanu Ram handed over DD No.28A which noted that factory owner Harish Kumar had admitted the injured Manoj in JPN Hospital. Since no eye-witness was found available, on the ba...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi Vs. Mansarovar Commercial (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
Dr.S. Muralidhar, J. 1. These five appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') by the Revenue are against a common order dated 8th January, 2002, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') for Assessment Years ('AYs') 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90. Introduction 2. The Assessees - Mansarover Commercial Private Limited (MCPL) (the Respondent in ITA No. 162 of 2002), Sovereign Commercial Private Limited (SCPL) (the Respondent in ITA No. 164 of 2002), Swastik Commercial Private Limited (SWCPL) (the Respondent in ITA No. 165 of 2002), Trishul Commercial Private Limited (TCPL) (the Respondent in ITA No. 167 of 2002) and Pasupati Nath Commercial Private Limited (PNCPL) ((the Respondent ITA No. 168 of 2002) are companies incorporated under the Registration of Companies (Sikkim) Act, 1961. Each of the Assessee companies claims to be carrying on the business of commercial agents in cardamom and other agricultural products and having bank accounts with UCO Bank, Ga...
G.S. Developers and Contractors Private Limited Vs. Alpha G. Group Dev ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-2016
IA 2317/2016 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. ARB. A (COMM) 07/2016 1. The challenge in this petition under Section 37 (2) (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is to the order dated February 15, 2016, whereby the learned Arbitrator inter-alia, has, allowed the respondent No.1 and 2 herein, to encash the five bank guarantees, and directed them to deposit the amount of bank guarantees in an escrow account in a Public Sector Bank and to await the disbursement, subject to the final Award. 2. According to Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the subject matter of the application under section 17 of the Act was the following five bank guarantees:- S.No.Date of IssueBank Guarantee No.AmountDue DatePurpose1.06.01.2012JOIGOPG12006000140000000/-29.12.2015Mobilisation Advance2.06.01.2012JOIGOPG12006000343672568/-03.01.2016Mobilisation Advance3.13.12.2012JOIGOPG12348000216100000/-09.12.2015Mobilisation Advance...
Raju Kumar and Another Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2016
Mukta Gupta, J. 1. Appellant No.1 Raju Kumar and his father appellant No.2 Krishan Govind have been convicted for the murder of Ram Niwas Shukla and for causing injuries to Shashi Shukla vide the impugned judgment dated July 20, 2000 and awarded imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2000/- for offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 324/34 IPC. The prosecution case rests on the testimony of Shashi Shukla PW-7, the wife of deceased Ram Niwas Shukla, who was also injured in the incident. 2. The investigation was set into motion on September 08, 1996 when a wireless information was received at 8.05 PM recorded vide DD No.20 at Police post Ganvri PS Bhajanpura. When Constable Ridku Singh reached the spot at K-21/46 C, Gautam Vihar Chowk he was informed that the injured had been removed to GTB hospital. On reaching the hospital he found Ram Niwas, who was declared unfit to make statement whereas his wife Sha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »