Delhi Court July 2016 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2016 Page 5 of about 67 results (0.021 seconds)Indus Towers Limited Vs. Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd.
Court: Delhi
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying for, inter alia, directing Sistema Shyam Teleservices Limited, the respondent not to sell, transfer, alienate or otherwise dispose of its active infrastructure equipments, apparatus consisting of Base Transceiver Stations (BTSs), cables, antennas, microwave etc., all other assets, including movable or immovable properties of whatever nature, or whole or any part of its undertaking or any rights, title or interest therein and directing the respondent to keep the same in safe custody till the disputes between the petitioner and respondent regarding non-payment of dues and unpaid amounts to the petitioner have been settled through Arbitration, in terms of the Master Services Agreement signed between the parties. 2. Few facts are that petitioner on 10th January, 2008 was registered for Infrastructure Provider-Category-1 (IP-I) with the Department of Telecommunication, Mini...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Ache Lal
Court: Delhi
1. File taken up today as 7th July, 2016 fixed for pronouncement was declared holiday on account of Id ul-Fitr . 2. Challenge in this appeal is a judgment dated 09.11.2012 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.225/09 arising out of FIR No.210/09 PS Sultanpuri whereby the respondent Ache Lal was acquitted of the charge under Sections 376/506 II IPC. The appeal is contested by the respondent. 3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as stated in the charge-sheet was that prior to 10.06.2009 at House No.I-91, Krishan Vihar, Sultanpuri, Delhi, the respondent (victim s father) committed rape upon the prosecutrix X (changed name) aged around 16 years continuously for about two / two and a half years and criminally intimidated her. Written complaint (Ex.PW- 1/A) was made by the prosecutrix on 10.06.2009 at Police Station Sultan Puri and the Investigating Officer after making endorsement (Ex.PW-7/A) lodged First Information Report. X was medically examined; she recorded her 164 Cr...
Tag this Judgment!State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) Vs. Mohd Raja @ Shahnawaz
Court: Delhi
1. By this revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr. P.C. the petitioner seeks for setting aside the order dated 14.09.2015 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Central, Delhi , whereby the respondent has been discharged from the offence punishable under Section 302/392/397/34 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 02.12.2014, DDA No.11A was recorded at Police Station Karol Bagh at 7.00 am regarding one person receiving knife injury who seemed to have expired at Regarpura, Hardhyan Singh Road, Aggarwal Dharamshala. Thereafter, the police party reached the spot and found that at the road side one person of the age about 25-30 years was lying dead. Crime team was called at the place of occurrence. It was observed by the Investigating Officer that somebody had used some sharp edged weapon in committing the murder of the deceased. Accordingly a case under Section 302 of IPC was registered. 3. During the course of investigation, statement of o...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. J.B. Overseas Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
1. This petition was originally listed on 7th July 2016, which was declared a holiday on account of Id-ul-Fitr. The petition is, with the consent of parties, taken up for final hearing today. 2. This is the second round of litigation by the Petitioner, M/s. J.B. Overseas. The first round culminated in a judgment dated 26th April 2016 delivered by this Court in The Bullion and Jewellers Association (Regd.) v. Union of India 230 (2016) DLT 38. By the said judgment, which was common to the writ petition filed by M/s. J B Overseas being W.P. (C) No. 936 of 2016, the Court quashed a Circular dated 6th October 2015 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs ( CBEC ) statinginter alia that the gold jewellery imported by the members of the said Association from Indonesia do not satisfy the criteria and should be denied the benefit of preferential custom duty. The said Circular directed the Assessing Authority to disregard certificates issued by the statutory authorities in Indonesia and...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. L.G Electronics India (P) Ltd. Vs. Dinesh Kalra
Court: Delhi
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) for setting aside the arbitral award dated 28th June, 2013 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal presided by Justice P. K. Bahri (Retd.), Justice Usha Mehra (Retd.) and Justice R.C. Chopra (Retd.) on the ground that the Arbitral Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction to give an award pertaining to other products also which violates the mandate of Section 7 of the Act. 2. The petitioner used to offer various incentives to boost its sales in the market/ make its prices more competitive vis-a-vis its competitors. The Distributors (including the respondent) would purchase the products at a price and once the target (of the scheme) was achieved, the respondent would issue credit notes for the incentive which was due and payable. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and the respondent entered into an Agreement for Distribution on 24th October, 20...
Tag this Judgment!Citicorp International Ltd. Vs. Shiv-Vani Oil and Gas Exploration
Court: Delhi
V. Kameswar Rao, J. 1. EA(OS) Nos. 700/2014, 526/2015, 864/2015, 195/2016, 142/2016 and 250/2016 By this order, I shall decide EA (OS) Nos.700/2014, 526/2015, 864/2015, 195/2016, 142/2016 and 250/2016. 2. EA (OS) 700/2014 is filed by the judgment debtor namely Shiv-Vani Oil and Gas Exploration Services Ltd.; EA (OS) 526/2015 is filed by the ICICI Bank U.K. PLC; EA(OS) 864/2015 is filed by the Standard Chartered Bank acting in its capacity as a security trustee for and on behalf of 8 banks/financial institutions and EA(OS) Nos. 195/2016, 142/2016 and 250/2016 are filed by ILandFS Trust Company Ltd., the receiver. EA(OS) 700/2014 3. This is an application filed by the judgment debtor for modification of order dated 28th July, 2014 to the extent of excluding the rigs owned by subsidiaries. It is averred in the application and contended by Mr. Pawan Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the judgment debtor that the order dated 28th July, 2014 inter alia restraining the judgment de...
Tag this Judgment!Bharti Infratel Limited Vs. Sistema Shyam Tele Services Limited
Court: Delhi
1. By way of this common order, I propose to decide both the abovementioned petitions which are between the same parties. Most of the facts and legal issues are also common. 2. As disputes arose between the parties with regard to payment of charges claimed by the petitioner who filed the first petition being OMP No.472/2014 wherein by order dated 2nd May, 2014 (while issuing notice), as agreed by the respondent, the following order was passed:- Issue notice. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent accepts notice. The petitioner at this stage is pressing prayers (a) and (b) of the petition. As far as prayer (a) is concerned, without prejudice, the respondent has no objection. Both the parties have made their submissions for some time. Reply be filed by the respondent within two weeks. List on 30th May, 2014. As agreed by the respondent, the respondent shall commence removing its Active Infrastructure including but not limited to microwave/GSM antennae and Base Transceiver Station ...
Tag this Judgment!Salim Khan Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
1. The present appeal has been filed by the real brother of the deceased Tasleem under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 30.03.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge by which the respondent No. 2 to 5 stand acquitted of the charge under Section 120-B and Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Trial Court are as under: On 03.08.2008 at about 4.20 AM, an information was received from Wireless Operator by the Duty Officer at the Police Station Bhajanpura regarding the quarrel taken place at Gali No. 7, near water tank, Ghonda. On receipt of the said information, ASI Baldev Raj alongwith Ct. Hawa Singh reached at the spot i.e. B-13/16, Gali No. 7, Subhash Mohalla Delhi, and found that dead body of one Taslim S/o Rahmat Khan was lying on the first floor in a pool of blood, who was having stab injuries on his hands, chest, stomach, face and thighs. They also found that one bl...
Tag this Judgment!Shashi Bala Vs. State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Sunita Gupta, J. 1. The challenge in this petition under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C ) is to the order dated 02.04.2016 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in case FIR No. 259/2013 under S. 509 IPC registered at Police Station Moti Nagar, Delhi whereby pursuant to the application moved by the respondent nos. 2 to 5, the SHO concerned was directed to supply certain documents to them. 2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner/complainant that pursuant to the complaint filed by the petitioner the FIR under S. 509 IPC was registered against the respondent nos. 2 to 5. A detailed report under S. 173 Cr.P.C was filed against the respondent nos. 2 to 5 on 13.01.2014. When the matter was pending for the purpose of framing of charges an application dated 25.11.2014 and a supplementary application dated 28.02.2015 were moved by the respondent nos. 2 to 5 seeking direction to prosecution to make disclosur...
Tag this Judgment!Hyundai Rotem Company Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
Court: Delhi
Oral: CM No. 24046-47/2016 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 5851/2016 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning the order dated 06.07.2016 passed by the respondent blacklisting the petitioner for a period of five years. 2. This is a third order passed by the respondent qua the petitioner for the same conduct. The first two having been set aside by a Division Bench of this court. 3. The petitioner had submitted a bid with the respondent and was successful. The letter of award was issued to the petitioner on 01.04.2013. As per the petitioner, subsequent to the award of contract, a letter was received from the respondent on 05.11.2014 stating that at the time of submission of its bid, the petitioner had not disclosed the debarment order dated 14.12.2011 passed by the Airport Authority of India. The debarment by Airport Authority of India was for a period of 3 years. 4. It is contended that on receipt of the letter dated 05.11.2014, the petition...
Tag this Judgment!