Court : Delhi
Open Court: 1. On the aspect of territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present suit, learned counsel for the plaintiff points out that the plaintiff is an American corporation and, therefore, it does not have registered office in India. However, the plaintiff has several outlets within the jurisdiction of this Court in Delhi details whereof are set out in paragraph 38 of the plaint. These BURGER KING restaurants are operating at: (i) Select City Walk Mall, Saket, New Delhi (ii) E-8, Inner Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi (iii) Epicuria Food Mall, Nehru Place, New Delhi (iv) Ambience Mall, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi (v) M Block, Greater Kailash I, New Delhi (vi) DT City Center Mall, MG Road, New Delhi (vii) First Floor, Plot C 1, 2 and 3, PP Towers, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi (viii) Rajouri Garden, New Delhi 2. Consequently, it is evident that the plaintiff is carrying on business within the jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, in the facts of this case, the plaintiff i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The Petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, has filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, impugning separate notices of default assessment dated 5th August, 2013 whereby the Petitioner's entire turnover for the period 2010-11 and 2011-12 has been assessed to Value Added Tax (VAT) and penalty and interest has also been levied in addition to the tax assessed. The Petitioner also impugns an order dated 7th February, 2014 as rectified by an order dated 13th February, 2014 passed by the Special Commissioner (VAT) directing a deposit of Rs.3,14,00,000/- - being 20% of the disputed demand of VAT and interest for the period 2011-12 - as a pre-condition for hearing the objections filed by the Petitioner in respect of demand raised for the financial year 2011-12. In addition, the Petitioner also impugns a ruling dated 6th April, 2011 made by the Commissioner (VAT) under Section 85 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Oral: CS(OS) No.1441/2008 and I.A. No. 10345/2010 (U/O VII Rule 11 CPC) 1. This suit for partition is filed by the plaintiff Sh. Rishi Pal Singh son of Sh. Padam Singh and Smt. Chanderkala Devi. The suit property is the property situated on a plot of land admeasuring 322 sq. yds. bearing no. T-14, Green Park Extension, New Delhi. Defendant no.1 in the suit is Sh. Harinder Pal Singh, one other son of late Sh. Padam Singh and Smt. Chanderkala Devi. Defendant nos. 2(i) to 2(iv) are the legal heirs of another son Sh. Rajendra Pal Singh of Sh. Padam Singh and Smt. Chanderkala Devi. During the pendency of the suit defendant no.1/Sh. Harinder Pal Singh expired, and he is now represented by his legal heirs. 2. The suit plaint is predicated on the cause of action that the suit property has to be equally divided 1/3rd each between the plaintiff, the defendant no.1 and defendant nos. 2(i) to 2(iv) jointly, inasmuch as though earlier there was a compromise of January, 1983 recorded between the par...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Mukta Gupta, J. 1. Phool Chand has been convicted for murdering Dr.Shanti Raj, removing gold bangles and two gold rings from her body, committing theft of the household goods from the house of the deceased vide impugned judgment dated August 30, 2000 and directed to undergo imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for offence punishable under Section 404 IPC vide order on sentence dated September 08, 2000. 2. According to the prosecution it proved fourteen circumstances to convict the appellant of which except circumstance Nos.4 and 8, the learned Trial Judge held that the same had been proved. However, to fill in the gap in respect of circumstance Nos.4 and 8, the learned Trial Court pressed in explanations under Section 313 Cr.P.C which were found to be false and thus convicted the appellant. The circumstances pressed in by the prosecution are: (1) That deceased Shanti Raj was an old lady, aged about 76 yrs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Ved Prakash Vaish, J. C.M. Appl. No.15999/2016 in W.P.(C) No.3756/2016 C.M. Appl. No.16001/2016 in W.P.(C) No.3757/2016 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The applications stand disposed of. W.P. (C) No.3756/2016 W.P.(C) No.3757/2016 W.P.(C) Nos.3756/2016 and 3757/2016 1. By way of the present petitions, the petitioners apart from quashing and setting aside the charge sheet dated 16th July, 2012 also prays for stay of the departmental proceedings/inquiry till the conclusion of the criminal case pending against the petitioners on the same charges and allegations. 2. Since both the petitions involve similar question of law, therefore both the petitions are taken up together. For the sake of convenience the facts are being taken from W.P.(C) No.3576/2016. 3. The petitioner was employed with Haryana State Roadways as Car Driver at the office of Flying Squad Officer, Transport Department, Haryana State Roadways at ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. A raid was conducted on 27th March...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. By a common judgment dated November 18, 2015 three appeals were disposed of. Relief granted to the appellant in LPA No.684/2011 has become the subject matter of the above captioned two review petitions, one filed by the respondent and the other by the appellant. 2. To set the setting for the factual backdrop concerning the two review petitions, the judgment, review whereof is prayed for by both sides records the checkered history of the appellant after he joined NTPC in the Accounts Department as a Junior Controller in the year 1986 and was served with a charge sheet in the same year, followed by another charge sheet issued and the proceedings terminating therefrom in the form of the former resulting in penalty of one increment with cumulative effect imposed and the latter resulting in initially a penalty of removal from service being imposed, but converted into a penalty of censure. At a meeting held on January 16, 1989 it was decided that all cases would be closed and as a result ...
Tag this Judgment!