Delhi Court March 2016 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.
Rahul and Others Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2016
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Rahul, Sh. Bal Kishan and Smt. Suman for quashing of FIR No.20/2014 dated 11.01.2014, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Najafgarh on the basis of the Settlement in the Family Courts, Dwarka, Delhi arrived at between petitioner no.1 and respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Kiran on 04.12.2014. 2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question by ASI Tej Ram. 3. The factual matrix of the pres ent case is that the marriagebetween petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 12.05.2013. Mother-in-law of the complainant started demanding dowry within a week of the marriage. When the complainant refused to the same, she was beaten up. The complainant informed her parents who came to her matrimonial home and took her along....
Raj Rani Vs. GNCT of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2016
Crl.M.A. No. 3741/2016 (for exemption) Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application is allowed. CRL.M.C. No. 892/2016 1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner seeks directions thereby quashing of FIR No.175/2011 registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against her. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2, namely, Ms. Beena Kaur against the petitioner and her two sons (since expired), consequent upon certain matrimonial and domestic disputes having arisen between the parties. Respondent no.2 was married to the younger son of the petitioner, namely Ajay Kumar @ Banty, who expired on 27.12.2011 and thereafter her elder son namely Sanjay @ Lukky was expired on 12.03...
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson(Publ) Vs. Lava International Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2016
1. After framing of issues on 3rd February, 2016 and before directions for trial, the above mentioned application was pending which is filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Section 151 CPC seeking constitution of a confidentiality club. 2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction against the defendants seeking inter alia to restrain violation and infringement of its rights in its patent being : i. IN 203034 titled as Linear Predictive Analysis by synthesis encoding method and encoder ; ii. IN 203036 titled as Apparatus of producing from an original speech signal a plurality of parameters ; iii. IN 234157 titled as A method of encoding/decoding multi-codebook fixed bitrate CELP signal block ; iv. IN 203686 titled as Method and system for alternating transmission of codec mode information ; v. IN 213723 titled as Method and apparatus for generating comfort noise in a speech decoder ; vi. IN 229632 titled as Multi service handling by a Single Mobile Station ; vii...
Dinesh Kumar and Others Vs. State ( Nct Of Delhi) and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2016
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Smt. Kanta, Sh. Rajkumar, Smt. Babli @ Seema, Sh. Om Prakash and Smt. Laxmi for quashing of FIR No.489/2013 dated 20.07.2013, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Mehrauli on the basis of the Mediation Report of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi arrived at between petitioner no.1 and respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Pawan @ Versha on 26.07.2014. 2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question by her counsel. 3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 02.02.2006 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the marriage, the accused persons i.e. the in-laws of the complainant told her that her parents had not g...
Sheela Rani Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2016
1. The background facts and the issues raised in these two similarly placed appeals under Sections 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) were noted at some length in the common order that was passed on 25.02.2016 as under:- It is stated that on 16.03.2009 an accident occurred involving motor vehicle described as water tanker bearing registration no.DL-1GB-8196 (the offending vehicle) driven by second respondent (Lal Singh) in the area of DC Office Mehrauli Badarpur Border resulting in injuries being suffered by Shiv Kumar. The offending vehicle is concededly owned by Sheela Rani (appellant in MAC no.701/2012). Admittedly, the offending vehicle was insured against third party risk with National Insurance Company Ltd. (first respondent in MAC appeal no.701/2012) for the period covering the date of accident (16.03.2009). On the claim petition (registered as suit no.616/2010) brought by Shiv Kumar (on 20.07.2009), notices were issued by the motor accident claims tribunal (the tribunal)....
Sanjay Gandhi Animal Care Centre Vs. Saddan and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2016
1. By way of the present Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. petitioner seeks directions thereby modifying the order dated 16.11.2015 passed in Crl. Rev. P. 185/2015 to the extent that the release of animals must be conditional. 2. Further seeks directions to allow the custody of the animals pursuant to order dated 16.11.2015 subject to implementation of statutory recommendations of AWBI Circular dated 27.01.2016 and ensure the safety and well-being of the animals. 3. Ms. Geeta Luthra, ld. Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn the attention of this court to Annexure A/9 at 84 dated 27.01.2016 whereby, Animal Welfare Board of India wrote a letter to the Director of Prosecution, Govt. of NCT of Delhi thereby stated as under: 1. The State must vehemently oppose the release of custody of animals to owners / persons against whom allegations of cruelty or allegations of slaughter in respect to animals not permitted to be slaughtered, have been made. The State can d...
Om Bir Gupta and Others Vs. State Nct Of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2016
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Ombir Gupta, Sh. Subhash Chand Gupta, Sh. Devender Gupta @ Vicky, Sh. Ankit @ Vikas Gupta and Sh. Hari Kishan Gupta for quashing of FIR No.261/2010 dated 28.07.2010, under Section 308 IPC registered at Police Station Sarai Rohilla on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) arrived at between the petitioners and respondent no.2, namely, Sh. Rajesh Sharma on 10.09.2014. 2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent no.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the victim in the FIR in question by SI Sachin Yadav. 3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the complainant, namely, Ct. Mamta, lodged the FIR in question on the allegation that a PCR call was recorded in the daily Roznamcha that a quarrel and beating took place in L-Block near Shiv Mandir Vatika Chowk, Shastri Nagar, Delhi. On receipt of the same, the complainan...
ANZ Grindlays Bank (now Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd.) Vs. De ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2016
Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd., formerly known as 'ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd.' (hereafter the 'Assessee') under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the 'Act') impugning an order dated 29th August, 2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the Tribunal ) in ITA No. 1442/Del of 1997. The said appeal, ITA 1442/Del of 1997, was preferred by the Assessee against an order dated 14th January, 1997 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter 'CIT(A)'] in Appeal No.164/96-97 which in turn was preferred by the Assessee against the assessment order dated 25th March, 1994 passed in respect of Assessment Year (AY) 1991-92 . 2. The controversy involved in the present appeal relates to the denial of deduction of expenses - by virtue of provision of Section 40(a)(iii) of the Act -for failure on the part of the Assessee to deduct and deposit Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) within the prescribe...
Gori Shankar and Others Vs. Ishwar Singh and United India Insurance Co ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2016
1. Gori Shanker, then serving as captain in Indian Army with posting in 1 Air Signal Regiment, c/o 56, A.P.O. suffered injuries in motor vehicular accident that occurred on 19.09.1992 when the two wheeler scooter he was riding is stated to have been hit by bus bearing registration No.DL 1P 1061 (the offending vehicle). He brought a claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 21.12.1992 seeking compensation, which was registered as MACT case No.79/2002. In the claim petition Ishwar Singh and Raju were impleaded as first and second respondents on the averment that they were owner and driver respectively of the offending vehicle. United India Insurance Co. was also impleaded as party respondent (third respondent) in the claim case on the averment that the offending vehicle was insured with it against third party risk for the period in question. It may be added here that the said insurance compan...
M/s. Inspiration Engineer Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2016
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. In this writ petition two sets of points have been raised concerning the land acquisition proceedings. One set pertains to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Act (hereinafter referred to as the 1894 Act ) and the other set relates to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 2013 Act ). 2. Insofar as the 1894 Act is concerned, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that since the provisions of Section 11A thereof were not complied with and the Award was not made within the stipulated period of two years, the acquisition has lapsed. The other point raised under the 1894 Act is that because of non- compliance of the provisions under Section 17(3A), the acquisition has lapsed. As regards the 2013 Act, it is submitted that, in any event, since compensation has not been paid to the petitioners in respect of the said acquisition,...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »