Delhi Court June 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.
N.S. Kapur and Others Vs. SGTB Khalsa College and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-20-2016
Oral: CM APPL. 20485/2016 and CM APPL. 20424/2016 1. By CM Appl. 20485/2016 the applicant/petitioner no.1 seeks a direction to the respondents to abide by the interim arrangement already in force vide order dated 25.6.2012 passed in LPA No.461/2012 and order dated 20.5.2013 and 1.7.2015 passed in W.P.(C) 6581/2012, and continue to provide reservations to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes categories. 2. By CM Appl. 20424/2016, the applicant/petitioner no.2 seeks a direction to stay the order dated 19.7.2011 passed by National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions during the pendency of the present writ petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submit that interim order granted by the Division Bench in LPA No.461/2012 on 25.06.2012 was made applicable to the present writ petition as well. Reliance is placed on the order passed by this Court on 20.05.2013. Counsel further submits that this interim order was continued from time to time. 4. It may be noticed that on 18.04....
Munna Lal Vs. Karan and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-13-2016
P.S. Teji, J. 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.12.2013 passed by the learned ASJ in Criminal Revision No. 122/2013 whereby the revision petition of the petitioner was dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent No. 3 are husband and wife whereas respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are their children. The respondent No. 3/wife had filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner for maintenance to herself and her children in March, 2009 where the petitioner was initially proceeded ex parte but on an application being made, the ex parte proceedings were set aside. It was alleged in the petition that the petitioner/husband is earning Rs. 20,000/- per month by giving tuition's and doing farming on his land, but never remitted a single penny to the respondents/complainants. 3. The contentions made in the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. were opposed by the p...
Subodh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
1. It is stated that human lust knows no bounds-if there is any truth in it, the present case is a glaring example of such lust. In the present case a tiny tot aged about 2-1/2 years has become a victim of the lust of the appellant resulting in his conviction under sections 376(2)(f)/363/186/332/353 IPC in Sessions Case No. 85/2011 arising out of FIR No.29/10 PS Govind Puri and sentenced to undergo various prison terms. 2. Succinctly stated, the case of the prosecution is as follows: Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge- sheet is that on 01.02.2010 at about 08.00 P.M. the appellant after kidnapping the prosecutrix X (assumed name), a minor child, aged about 2 years sexually assaulted her. Police machinery came into motion when information about the incident was recorded vide Daily Diary (DD) No.20A at PS Govind Puri. The investigation was assigned to SI Ashok Giri who went to the spot. First Information was lodged on the statement of victim's mother - Ruby. S...
Prakash Singh Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
Sanjiv Khanna, J. 1. Prakash Singh in this writ petition assails the order dated 11th September, 2015 passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (Tribunal, for short), whereby OA No.2719/2014 stands dismissed on the ground of limitation. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Senior Administrative Officer (SAO), Grade-II in the Department of Defence Research and Development, Ministry of Defence ( DRDO for short) on 30th April, 2004. His seniority viz. promotee officers, was fixed with reference to his date of joining as SAO, Grade-II in the seniority list published by the DRDO on 1st June, 2004. The petitioner did not object to the seniority as fixed predicated on his date of joining. In 2007, those senior to the petitioner as per the seniority list dated 1st June 2004 were promoted to the post of SAO, Grade-I. 3. On 19th September, 2013, the petitioner made a representation for correction of his seniority and claimed consequential relief by way of pr...
Chander Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
1. By the instant appeal, the appellant Chander Singh challenges the impugned judgment dated 17th December, 2013 whereby he has been convicted for the offence defined under Section 9(k), punishable under Section 10 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2002 (in short the POCSO Act) in FIR No.80/2013 registered at PS Mangol Puri and the order on sentence dated 18th December, 2013 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on February 09, 2013 at about 7.28 PM, PW12 HC Laxman Singh was handed-over DD No.18, Ex.PW-12/A informing that a boy was kidnapping a girl and the said boy was apprehended by the caller at K Block complex. On reaching the spot, he found Chander Singh apprehended by public. Raj Kumar who made the call to the PCR was found to be the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix, who was a min...
Raj Pal Yadav Vs. Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The appellant in these proceedings was arrayed as second defendant in a suit (CS (OS) 3037/2012- hereafter the suit ). He is aggrieved by the order, dated 03.12.2013 of the learned Single Judge sentencing him to simple imprisonment for 10 days. He was held guilty of committing contempt on 13.05.2013 for repeatedly violating undertakings given to this Court. The court had, however, deemed it appropriate to provide the appellant with reasonable opportunity to be heard before imposing sentence. The appellant s conduct in the intervening period from 13.05.2013 to 03.12.2013 was taken into consideration by the single judge, while passing of the impugned order. The appellant exercised his statutory right to appeal after having served sentence from 03.12.2013 to 06.12.2013. The learned Single Judge suspended his sentence for a period of 4 days until 10.12.2013. In the appellate proceedings, on 10.12.2013, this Court ordered interim stay of sentence. 2. The brief facts ...
Mohan Lal Kukreja Vs. Sunder Kukreja and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
1. Whereas Mohan Lal Kukreja fights for not only his reputation but even an asset, his brother Madan Lal Kukreja fights to protect his reputation because a finding of fact has been returned against them that they have forged a deed of retirement dated August 16, 1990. It is a slippery slope for Madan Lal and Mohan Lal because the challenge is to an award and the issue concerns a plea of an oral family settlement pleaded by Madan Lal and Mohan Lal with the deed of retirement dated August 16, 1990 at the fulcrum of the plea; and needless to state it is apparent that the award returns a finding of fact. Challenge to such awards is concededly on limited grounds. The slope to be climbed in such a terrain is obviously a very slippery slope. The task of Mr.Arvind Nigam, Senior Counsel, on whose back Mr.Suman Kapoor Advocate, piggy rode, was obviously arduous, and learned Senior Counsel guided us through the climb very slowly, with care and caution to cross the bridges and the spurs, and as a ...
Suresh Kumar Bansal and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-2016
Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. The Petitioners are individuals who have entered into separate agreements with a builder (M/s Sethi Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. - hereafter 'the builder') to buy flats in a multi-storey group housing project named Sethi Group - Max Royal being developed by the builder in Sector 76, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. 2. The builder has in addition to the consideration for the flats also recovered service tax from the Petitioners, which is payable by him for services in relation to construction of complex and on preferential location charges. 3. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the levy of service tax on services 'in relation to construction of complex' as defined under Section 65 (105)(zzzh) of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereafter 'the Act') and inter alia impugn the explanation to Section 65(105)(zzzh) of the Act (hereafter the impugned explanation') introduced by virtue of Finance Act 2010 as being ultra vires of the Constitution of India. The Petitioners also impugn Section 65(105)(zzzzu)...
Technip Singapore Pte Ltd. Vs. Director of Income Tax and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. An order dated 15th February 2012 passed by the Authority for Advance Rulings ('AAR') (Income Tax) in AA No. 936 of 2010 has been challenged in this writ petition filed by Technip Singapore Pte Ltd. (formerly known as Global Industries Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd.), a company incorporated in Singapore. The Petitioner, a resident of Singapore, is admittedly entitled to the benefit of India-Singapore Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (hereinafter DTAA ). Background facts 2. The Petitioner states that it is a leading solutions provider of offshore construction, engineering, project management and support services to the oil and gas industry worldwide. The Income Tax Officer (International Taxation) Dehradun is stated to be the Assessing Officer ( AO ) as far as the Petitioner is concerned. 3. By a letter dated 12th June 2008 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd ( IOCL ) invited tenders for the "Residual Offshore Construction work" at Paradip. The letter explained that IOCL was "sett...
Suraj Parkash @ Chikka and Another Vs. State NCT of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2016
1. Sanjay @ Kala, Suraj Prakash @ Chikka and Rakesh; the latter two being the appellants because vide impugned judgment dated January 08, 2014 Suraj Prakash has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and for which vide order on sentence dated January 16, 2015 he has been sentenced to undergo RI for one year and Rakesh has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC as also Section 25/27 of the Arms Act and vide order on sentence of even date has been sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years and pay fine in sum of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo SI for 15 days for the former offence and RI for a period of 3 years and pay fine in sum of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo SI for 15 days for the latter offence. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently and benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. has been extended. It is obvious that Sanjay @ Kala has been acquitted and the reason is neither the victim Sunil Sherawat who appeared as PW-9 nor the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »