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.
Indian Radiological and Imaging Association (Iria) and Others Vs. Unio ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2016
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. W.P.(C) No.6968/2011. 1. The petitioner claims to be a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 established with the aim and objective inter alia to promote the study and practice of radio-diagnosis, ultrasound, CT, MRI and other imaging modalities and, having more than 8600 radiologists and imaging experts having recognised post-graduate degrees in the field of radio-diagnosis and imaging recognised by the Medical Council of India (MCI) as its members. The petition is filed contending: (i) that to overcome the growing problem of sex-selective termination of pregnancy of female foetuses after determining sex of the foetus by using pre-natal sex determination techniques, the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sect Selection) Act, 1994 (PNDT Act) was enacted with the objective of prohibition of sex selection and for regulation of misuse of pre-natal diagnostic techniques and the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagn...
Directorate of Education Vs. Action Committee Unaided Recognized Priva ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-2016
G. Rohini, CJ. 1. This appeal by the Directorate of Education (DoE) is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.01.2016 in C.M. No.1778/2016 in W.P.(C) No.448/2016. 2. By the said order, the learned Single Judge stayed the order of the appellant/DoE dated 06.01.2016, which is impugned in the writ petition, till the disposal of the writ petition. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 4. W.P.(C) No.448/2016 has been filed by the Action Committee Unaided Recognized Private Schools/the respondent herein with a prayer to quash the orders of the appellant herein dated 31.12.2015 and dated 06.01.2016. 5. The order dated 31.12.2015 was issued by DoE, Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) advising all the Unaided Private Recognized Schools in Delhi to correct and modify their admission criteria in terms of the earlier Circular dated 08.12.2015 regarding admission for Entry Level Classes against the open seats in Private Unaided Recognized Schools of Delh...
K-7 Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shailendra Garg
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-2016
I.A. No. 14316/2014 (under Order XXXVII Rule 3 CPC) 1. The aforesaid application has been filed by the defendant to seek unconditional leave to defend the present summary suit filed by the plaintiff under the provisions of Order XXXVII CPC. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant Shailendra Garg was known to the plaintiff for a couple of years. He was in need of finances and approached the plaintiff in his personal capacity, seeking loan in the month of September 2012. After meetings with the defendant at the registered office of the plaintiff company, the plaintiff agreed to advance finance to the defendant as a loan, to be refunded by the defendant with interest thereon @ 36% per annum. The defendant executed promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the loan along with interest, on demand made by the plaintiff company. The plaintiff, in all, advanced an amount of Rs.2.20 Crores to the defendant as loan by six installments, the details whereof are state...
Central Board of Film Certification and Another Vs. Pankaj Butalia and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2016
G. Rohini, CJ. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.05.2015 in W.P.(C) No.675/2015. The respondents in the petition i.e. Central Board of Film Certification and Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Union of India are the appellants before us. 2. The first respondent herein/writ petitioner produced and directed a documentary film titled The Textures of Loss'. The Central Board of Film Certification permitted the exhibition of the said film subject to four excisions/deletions specified therein and insertion of the following disclaimer at the beginning of the film: views expressed by individuals in the documentary are solely their own views. Their views are not intended to hurt/defame any person, caste, community, religion, institution or organization ?. 3. The first respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner') preferred an appeal under Section 5-C of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (for short the Act') and the same was...
Samiuddin Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2016
Mukta Gupta, J. 1. Vide the impugned judgment dated July 04, 2000 Samiuddin has been convicted for the murder of Shibte Hassan and awarded life imprisonment vide order dated July 11, 2000 and a fine of Rs. 2000/- for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and R.I. for two years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- for offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. 2. Process of law was set into motion when at 2.25 PM on November 15, 1995 an information was received through PCR recorded vide DD No.14-A that a burnt dead body has been found at Flat No.354, Pocket-Q, Dilshad Garden. On reaching the spot, SI Anil Sharma along with other staff found that a man whose body was badly burnt, along with a sack and it appeared as if the dead body had been brought to that place after being burnt. On the neck of the dead body almond colour shirt collar was found. Crime team was called and photographs were taken. Blood stained soil as well as earth control were picked up. On the basis of this information FIR No.63...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Rajbir Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2016
1. The present petitioner, i.e., Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-management') has preferred the present Writ Petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, Mandamus or any other Writ, order or orders for quashing the impugned order dated 02.06.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the learned Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator') in O.P. No. 35/91. 2. The brief facts stated are that the respondent-workman, i.e., Shri Rajbir Singh was in the employment of the petitioner-management as a conductor, B. No. 10384. On 11.08.1984, while the respondent-workman was on duty in bus No. DEP-8572 on Vrindavan “ Delhi route, the checking officials, i.e., Shri Raj Singh, T.I. and Shri Kanya Lal, A.T.I., of the petitioner-management intercepted the said bus at Kossi City at about 0830 hours and found the following ...
Hyosung Corporation Vs. Authority for Advance Rulings
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2016
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. 2. The applications are disposed of. Introduction 3. The challenge in these writ Petitions filed by Hyosung Corporation, having its office in South Korea, is to an order passed by the Authority for Advance Rulings ('AAR') on 7th August 2013, rejecting the applications filed by the Petitioner, for determination of the question regarding taxability of its profits arising from offshore sales. The AAR rejected the applications accepting the plea of the Respondent Income Tax Department that the bar under clause (i) of the proviso to Section 245R (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') to the AAR allowing the applications stood attracted. 4. These petitions challenge inter alia the said impugned order of the AAR and constitutional validity of clause (i) of the proviso to 245R (2) of the Act on the ground that the said provision is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well Article ...
Laxmi @ Laccho and Another Vs. State NCT of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2016
Sanjiv Khanna, J. 1. Laxmi and her adopted daughter Jyoti, impugn their conviction vide the judgment dated 16th December, 2011 for having murdered Asha. By order on sentence dated 22nd December, 2011, the appellants have been sentenced to imprisonment for life, fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short). 2. Asha had got married to Sanjay Rathore (PW-2), son of Laxmi in the year 1997. On 1st May, 2010 at about 9-9.30 A.M., Asha suffered extensive burns at her matrimonial home at B-114A, Majlis Park, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi. She was taken first to the Bubu Jagivan Ram Memmorial Hospital at about 10.10 A.M on 1st May, 2010 as per the MLC (Ex. PW13/A) and then on the same day at about 11.54 A.M. shifted to the Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narain Hospital. Asha died in the same hospital on 6th May, 2010 at about 5.15 P.M. The Post Mortem...
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2016
1. The petitioner-Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C. ?) against the Government of NCT of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as respondent no.1 ?) for quashing and setting aside the order dated 20.01.2016 (hereinafter referred to as impugned order ?), passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in FIR RC No. DAI-2015-A-0042 dated 14.12.2015, under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. At the outset, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent no.2-accused Rajendra Kumar has been added as proforma respondent, so no notice was issued to him. 2. The facts enumerated from the record are that on the basis of source information, the FIR of the present case was registered on 14.12.2015 against accused Rajendra Kumar and other co-accused...
Satpal Singh Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2016
Suresh Kait, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.11.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge, Delhi, in C.C. No.86/1999, convicting the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as PC Act') and the order on sentence dated 30.11.2002 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, on each count respectively. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months. 2. The case of the prosecution is that appellant Satpal Singh, Head Constable in Delhi Police, Vigilance Branch, was functioning as a Reader to Mr. B.L. Bhardwaj, ACP/Vigilance, PHQ, who was conducting an enquiry into the allegations of acceptance of Rs.20,000/- from one Ram Kumar (PW3), i.e., complainant of this case by one HC Suraj Bhan for getting PW3 employed in Delhi Police. As alleged, on 24.11.1995, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »