Delhi Court May 2016 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2016 Page 5 of about 66 results (0.026 seconds)Dashrath Singh Vs. Andhra Bank and Others
Court: Delhi
Ved Prakash Vaish, J. 1. By way of the present petition the petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and consequential benfits and for quashing the order dated 20th July, 2001 passed by respondent No.1 whereby punishment of dismissal was imposed on the petitioner. 2. Briefly stated the facts leading to filing of the present petition are that the petitioner was working as peon with the respondent Andhra Bank. While working at Vishwash Nagar, Branch, Shahdara, Delhi of the respondent Bank, the petitioner hurt his superior officer Shri Narinder Pal. FIR No.116/92 under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC ) was registered at Vivek Vihar Police Station against the petitioner. 3. The respondent Bank also issued a charge sheet dated 23rd October, 1992 against the petitioner for holding disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner replied to the charge sheet and denied the charges. He further pleaded that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mamta Singh Vs. Aman Singh @ Faiyaz Ahmed
Court: Delhi
Gita Mittal, J. Oral: 1. The appellant has assailed the order dated 31st July, 2015 passed by the Family Court on HMA No. 706/2014 being the petition under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 which had been jointly filed by the parties. 2. The parties before us were married in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies on 5th October, 2003. From their wedlock and cohabitation, these parties were blessed with a son-Master Ayush Singh who is being brought up as a Hindu child. The parties separated on or about the 18th August, 2012. 3. On a complaint of the appellant-wife on 2nd October, 2013, FIR No. 448/2013 was registered under Sections 498A, 406, 419, 440 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On completion of investigation, a challan under Section 173 of the CrPC was filed by the police on 2nd October, 2013 against the respondent and his family members. The criminal case is pending against them in the court of Ms. Richa Manchanda, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, R...
Tag this Judgment!Sumit Kumar and Another Vs. High Court of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Sanjiv Khanna, J. 1. This common judgment would dispose of the afore-stated two writ petitions calling in question some of the questions and answer key included in the Delhi Judicial (Preliminary) Examination held on 20th December, 2015. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respondent-Delhi High Court, we have also heard arguments, though no counter affidavit was filed in Sumit Kumar Vs. High Court of Delhi and Another. 3. The High Court of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) vide advertisement dated 6th October, 2015 had invited applications from eligible candidates for filling up 100 vacancies in the Delhi Judicial Service. The selection is by way of a three stage process, consisting of preliminary examination for selection and short listing of candidates for the mains written examination and viva voce. The preliminary examination was multiple choice objective type with the stipulation that there would be 25% negative marking for an incorrect answer. 4. Th...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Midas Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Small Industries Development Bank ...
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Perpetual lease-hold rights in Plot No.4 and 5 ad-measuring 7000 sq.metres, Phase-4, Industrial Area, Gwalthi, District Bilaspur, (Himachal Pradesh) belonging to the State of Himachal Pradesh were granted by the State of Himachal Pradesh in favour of M/s Pilot Technologies (India) Ltd. on September 19, 2007. As per the grant, the lessor had the right to recover upto 50% unearned increase if lease-hold rights were transferred for consideration; upon prior permission being granted by the lessor. 2. The lessee company sought for a permission to mortgage the subject property and on September 20, 2007 i.e. a day after the perpetual lease-deed was executed, the competent authority of the State of Himachal Pradesh conveyed approval for the property to be mortgaged, but wrote in the letter that the plot demise in perpetuity cannot be sold without the prior permission of the lessor; a condition which we find conflicts with the right conferred in favour of the mortgagee ...
Tag this Judgment!Sant Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Mukta Gupta, J. 1. Appellant has been convicted for the offence of murdering his maternal uncle Dinesh punishable under Section 302 IPC vide impugned judgment dated December 08, 2015 and directed to undergo imprisonment for life vide order on sentence dated December 21, 2015. 2. Factual matrix as set out by the prosecution is that an information was received at 7.25 AM on April 15, 2012 vide DD No.8A at PS Safdarjung Enclave through wireless informing that a dead body was lying in the rear lane of A-2/16, Safdarjung Enclave. Inspector Sanjay Sharma, PW-19 besides the staff and SHO, PS Safdarjung Enclave reached the spot where they found a dead body lying in a pool of blood. The dead body was found wrapped in a blanket and a coloured bloodstained bed sheet was lying beneath the dead body and one bloodstained pillow at a distance of about 14 steps from the dead body. Blood was visible on the fourth floor of the house No.A-2/147, Safdarjung Enclave besides blood spots on the wall. In the ...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. S.K. Metal and Co. and Another Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Ot ...
Court: Delhi
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. A common question that arises for consideration in both these writ petitions is about the liability of an importer to pay demurrage/godown rent and container charges under circumstances in which the importer is ultimately able to show that the import of the goods detained was validly made. Facts concerning M/s. S.K. Metal and Co. 2. The facts in W.P.(C) No. 6216 of 2001 filed by M/s S.K. Metal and Co. are that the Petitioner is a proprietorship concern dealing in import and selling of scrap. The Petitioner imported 18835 kgs and 18616 kgs of scrap from Germany under the Bill of Entry ( B/E ) No. 324372 dated 24th January 2001. Though the supplier was based in Germany the consignment was shipped from Los Angeles, USA. The B/E described the goods in the consignment as Zinc Diecast Scrap Saves , classified under CTH 7902 00, the customs duty chargeable at 35%, 10% thereof as surcharge, 16% as countervailing duty and 4% as special additional duty. 3. On 29th Januar...
Tag this Judgment!Hero Eco Tech Ltd. and Others Vs. Hero Cycles Ltd. and Another
Court: Delhi
V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral) 1. This is a petition filed by the petitioners under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( Act in short) with the following prayers:- A. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the arbitration proceedings, the Respondents be restrained by way of an ex-parte ad interim and interim injunction from exhibiting, promoting, displaying or selling bicycles bearing the trademark / Trade name HERO in any country other than India, USA, Russia, Australia New Zealand, Japan and European Union (except UK, Germany and Turkey) otherwise using the mark HERO in any country other than India, USA, Russia, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and European Union (except UK, Germany and Turkey) either as a trademark, trade name or in any manner whatsoever; B. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the arbitration proceedings, the Respondents be restrained by way of an ex-parte ad interim and interim injunction from using the monogram as described in the Family set...
Tag this Judgment!Angoori Devi and Another Vs. State
Court: Delhi
G.S. Sistani, J. Oral: 1. Present appeal arises out of a judgment dated 21.02.2000 and an order on sentence dated 03.04.2000, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi, in Session Case No.11/97, in case FIR No.364/96 registered under Sections 498A/302/34 IPC at Police Station Bhajanpura, whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/-, each, and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. The appellants were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and they were directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.5,000/-, each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. 2. At the outset, we may notice that appellant No.1, Smt.Angoori Devi, mother-in-law of the deceased, has since died. 3. The brief fact...
Tag this Judgment!Dharam Kaur Vs. Narender
Court: Delhi
Gita Mittal, J. Oral: 1. The appellant in the present appeal has assailed the judgment and decree dated 15th December, 2014 passed by the Principal Judge (North-West, Rohini), Family Court in HMA No. 218/2014. By this judgment and decree, the Family Court has accepted the petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the respondent-husband against his wife, the present appellant, dissolving their marriage by a decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are within a narrow compass and to the extent necessary are briefly noted hereafter. A marriage in accordance with Hindu Rites and Ceremonies was solemnised on 27th April, 2008 at Delhi. It is an admitted position that the marriage was consummated and the parties were blessed with two children firstly a son Jai and thereafter, a daughter, Komal. The parties admittedly stayed together till 23rd September, 2010. 3. On or about 15th October,...
Tag this Judgment!J.D. Tytler Nursery School Vs. Amarjeet Kaur
Court: Delhi
Indermeet Kaur, J. 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.8.2015 wherein the application filed by the tenant (J.D.Tytler Nursery School) seeking leave to defend in a pending eviction petition filed by the landlady Amarjeet Kaur under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been dismissed. The tenant is aggrieved by this finding. 2. Record discloses that an eviction petition had been filed by the landlady on the ground of bona fide necessity. The fact that she is the owner of the suit property is not disputed. She had inherited that property from her father Manmohan Singh along with other her siblings but thereafter they had relinquished their shares in favour of the landlady. She is the owner of the suit property; even presuming that she is a co-owner of the property she can maintain an eviction petition. This position is not disputed. Relationship of landlady and tenant is also not in dispute. This Court thus need not to delve any further into this aspect. ...
Tag this Judgment!