Delhi Court March 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.
Ramnish and Another Vs. CBI and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
Suresh Kait, J. 1. Vide the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.) petitioners seek directions thereby quashing the order dated 11.01.2005 whereby they have been summoned in Crl. Complaint Case No. 329/2001 pending before the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 323/427/448 of the IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.01.1999, case FIR No. RC-S-18-99-E0001 was registered by CBI against some unknown persons. On 04.03.1999, searches were conducted by petitioner no. 1, the investigating officer of the case at the premises of respondent no. 2 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal. On 17.09.1999, preliminary enquiry in respect of disproportionate assets alleged to have been accumulated by respondent no. 2 was registered. Thereafter on 07.12.1999, case FIR NO.RC-S-19-99- E0006 was registered against respondent no. 2 for amassing disproportionate assets to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs. ...
Joginder Singh Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
Suresh Kait, J. (Oral) 1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner seeks directions thereby quashing of FIR no. 719/96 registered at PS-Mangol Puri, Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 468/471/120B/34 IPC and the consequential proceedings thereto pending before the Trial Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.07.1996, complainant ASI Ramesh Kumar posted in Special Staff, North West District, Delhi was performing his duty at the barricade at outer ring road Police Post near Kali Mandir, Delhi. At that time, he received a secret information about plying of a stolen car. On receiving the information, he stopped Maruti Esteemed Car bearing no. HR-14-1477A, which was being driven by one Daljit Singh and asked him to produce documents of the Car. Accordingly, the documents were produced, but on suspicion the said vehicle was seized under Section 102 Cr.P.C. vide D.D. No.7. However, on verification of the documents, it was found tha...
S.K. Taneja Vs. Amarjeet Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
Oral: Anjana Taneja (born on 01.09.1954), working as a stenographer in Punjab National Bank at the then gross salary of Rs. 14,314/- per month, died as a result of injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident that occurred at about 6.15 PM on 30.05.2000 when the scooter bearing registration No.DAK 5568 (the scooter) on which she was riding pillion was involved in a collision with a blue line bus bearing registration No.DL 1PA 1974 (bus), admittedly insured against third party risk with the third respondent (insurer) for the period in question. Her husband and two children brought a claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M V Act) before the motor accidents claims tribunal (tribunal) on 23.10.2000 whereupon it was registered as suit No. 411/2000. In the claim petition, the insurer, driver and the registered owner of the bus were impleaded as party respondents, on the basis of pleadings that the accident had occurred due to rash/negligent driving of the ...
Thiess Iviinecs India Vs. NTPC Limited and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
Oral: 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( Act in short) seeking a direction against the respondent to produce the following documents in accordance with the orders of the Arbitral Tribunal ( Tribunal in short) dated September 21, 2015 ( order No.2 in short) and March 6, 2016 ( order No.3 in short). A. Agenda Papers for Item No. 360.2.l titled as "Development and Operation of the Pakri Barwadih Coal Mining Block and Item No. 360.2.3 being "Investment Approval for Pakri Barwadih Coal Mining Project, Rated Production Capacity of l 5MTPA" of the 360th Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Respondent held on 12 November 2010; B. NP 1 to 13 being supporting documents preceding NP-14 titled as "Approval for termination of Pakri Barwadih MDO reg." Facts:- 2. The petitioner and the respondent entered into a project agreement for Development and operation of the western pit of the Pakri Barwadih Coal Block o...
Raisuddin Vs. Gulshan and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-2016
1. Appellant Raisuddin in RSA Nos. 3/2012 and 4/2012 has challenged the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court dated 08.11.2011 in RCA Nos.9/2009 and 2/2010 whereby the judgment of the Trial Court in Suit No.431/2006, lodged at his instance for restitution of conjugal rights which was dismissed by the Trial Court and Suit No.432/2006, filed by the respondent seeking declaration that the "nikahnama" regarding "nikah" between him and the respondent is null and void and permanent injunction, restraining the appellant from making any claims towards the respondent in the capacity of husband, which too was dismissed by the Trial Court has been set aside and the suit of the respondent (Suit No.432/2006) has been decreed whereas suit of the appellant (Suit No.431/2006) has been dismissed. 2. In order to appreciate the facts of the two suits lodged by the appellant as well as the respondent respectively, it would be first necessary to set out in brief the respective cases of the appel...
Anukriti Dubey Vs. Partha Kansabanik and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-2016
1. Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. The present second appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 30.01.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge-2, South West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in RCA No.34/2015 whereby the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 30.09.2015 in CS(OS) No.133/2015, allowing the suit of the respondent No.1 under Order12, Rule 6 of the CPC, thereby entitling respondent No.1 to recover possession of the suit property from the appellant, was affirmed and upheld by the Appellate Court. 3. The respondent No.1 filed a suit bearing CS(OS) No.133/2015 for a decree of possession and eviction in his favour and against the appellant/defendant No.2 and respondent No.2 (husband of the appellant) in respect of suit property No.F-71, DG(S) Apartments, Plot No.6, Sector 22, Dwarka, New Delhi as well as for mesne profits. The case of the respondent No.1/plaintiff before the Trial Court was that he is the landlord and absolute owner of the property referred to...
Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-Xi and Another Vs. Indian National Co ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-2016
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. Introduction 1.1 More than four decades ago, while noting the distortion that large contributions of money made to political parties and candidates could bring about to the electoral process, the Supreme Court observed in Kanwar Lal Gupta v. Amar Nath Chawla, (1975) 3 SCC 646 (at p. 654) as under: "The availability of disproportionately larger resources is also likely to lend itself to misuse or abuse for securing to the political party or individual possessed of such resources, undue advantage over other political parties or individuals. Douglas points out in his book called Ethics in Government at p. 72, If one party ever attains overwhelming superiority in money, newspaper support, and (Government) patronage, it will be almost impossible, barring an economic collapse, for it ever to be defeated . This produces anti-democratic effects in that a political party or individual backed by the affluent and wealthy would be able to secure a greater representation than ...
Vijay Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi-III
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-2016
1. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking quashing of the order dated 20.11.2012, passed by the Respondent No. 1 under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the assessment years 2008-09, and for a direction to the Respondents to refund the income tax amounting to Rs.2,96,58,825/- for assessment years 2008-09 paid by the Petitioner. 2. The petitioner is an individual. It is contended that during the period July, 2007 to November, 2007, the petitioner sold 2,98,000 shares out of 3,08,000 shares in DLF Ltd., having face value of Rs.2 each, on the recognized stock exchange for a total consideration of Rs.19,78,00,000. It is contended that the said shares in DLF Ltd. were received by the Petitioner as gift from his mother on 30.01.2007. 3. On 31.01.2009, the Petitioner filed his return of income for assessment year 2008-09 declaring total income of Rs. 20,57,73,420/-. By adopting the date of gift from the mother as the date of a...
Praveen Dhama Vs. The State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
Mukta Gupta, J. 1. Praveen Dhama @ Shunty has been convicted for the offence of murder of Tinku vide the impugned judgment dated December 22, 2015 and directed to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC vide the order on sentence dated January 07, 2016. The learned ASJ has convicted Praveen on the testimony of the two eye-witnesses Braham Dev PW-1 and Jaipal Rana PW-2 besides the recovery of the pistol from Praveen returning a finding that the FSL report clearly established that the deceased suffered injury from the shot fired by Praveen from his pistol of .315 bore. 2. Learned counsel for Praveen assailing the impugned judgment contends that the rough site plan and the scale site plan do not tally. From the site plans one cannot make out from where Praveen allegedly fired the shot and where Tinku received the shot. The scaled site plan was not prepared at the instance of any eye-witness. From the testimony of Sub...
SA Vs. AA
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
1. The present appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2012 passed by the learned ADJ (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in HMA No.323/2010 preferred by the respondent/husband against the appellant/wife. By the impugned judgment, the learned ADJ decreed the petition preferred by the respondent/husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA against the appellant/wife, thereby holding that the respondent/husband has been subjected to cruelty by the appellant/wife, which were found to be grave and weighty. Consequently, the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce. 2. The parties were married at Delhi on 03.02.2005. One male child was born out of the wedlock on 30.12.2005. The allegations of the respondent-husband and the counter allegations of the appellant-wife are set out in the impugned judgment and the same are, therefore, not being reproduced herein. 3. The learned ADJ framed the issue whethe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »