Delhi Court August 2016 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Council of Instt of Chartered Acc of India Vs. Uma Shankar Jha and Ano ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral) 1. This is a reference under sub-Section 5 of Section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. It has reached for hearing today. Mr.Rakesh Aggarwal Advocate and Mr.Pulkit Aggarwal Advocate have appeared for the Institute of Chartered Accountants. None has appeared for Sh.Uma Shankar Jha, the Chartered Accountant who has been indicted. 2. We have heard Sh.Rakesh Aggarwal who has very ably and painstakingly taken us through the record culminating in the report of the Disciplinary Committee constituted to look into a complaint dated July 05, 2005 lodged with the Institute of Chartered Accountants by the Assistant General Manager (Inspection) of the Punjab and Sindh Bank Ltd. 3. M/s.J.S.Bedi and Co., Chartered Accountants of which Sh.U.S.Jha was a partner/member, he being a Chartered Accountant, were appointed concurrent auditors to audit the account of the Branch of Punjab and Sindh Bank New Delhi at Chandani Chowk for the period July 01, 2003 to June 30, 2...
Columbia Holdings Private Limited Vs. SSP Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
V. Kameswar Rao, J. 1. By this order, I shall decide a preliminary objection taken by the respondents on the maintainability of the four petitions which have been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 (5) and 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( Act of 1996 in short) being Arbitration Petitions No. 212/2016 and213/2016 and Petition under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 being OMP (I) (COMM) Nos. 94/2016 and 96/2016 on the ground that the petitions are hit by Section 69 (3) of the Partnership Act, 1932 ( Partnership Act in short). 2. The Arbitration Petition 212/2016 and OMP (I) (COMM) 96/2016, the relevant facts are, a fresh partnership deed dated April 1, 2005 was signed between MGF Development Ltd. and Columbia Holdings Pvt. Ltd in the partnership firm of MGF Mall Management to share the profits and losses as under:- M/s MGF Development Ltd- 50% M/s Columbia Holdings Pvt. Ltd.- 50% Thereafter, on 6th June, 2012 M/s SSP Developers Pvt Ltd. respondent No.1 through its ...
Ajaib Singh Vs. UOI and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
Sunita Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner Ajaib Singh was nominated as member of the National Commission for Minorities vide Notification dated 24th August, 2012 for a fixed tenure of three years from the date of assuming office. There was a provision of fixation of pay contained in the Rules which, inter alia, provided that the chairperson and every member shall be paid salary of Rs.80,000/- per month, provided that where the chairperson or member was a retired person, the salary payable together with the pension shall not exceed Rs.80,000/- per month. The petitioner has challenged the vires of proviso to this part of the Rule, as according to him, the normal pay to which the member was entitled to should not be reduced and should be paid without any deduction in addition to the pension which he was drawing from his erstwhile department where he had earlier served. 2. For deciding the controversy raised in this writ petition, it is not necessary to go into details of the facts. The petitione...
Karamjyoti Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the action of the respondent No. 1 and 2 i.e. Union of India and Sports Authority of India respectively in not selecting the petitioner for participation in the Rio Paralympic Games, 2016 and selecting respondent No. 4. Further, mandamus is sought to select the petitioner for participation in the upcoming Paralympic Games, 2016 Discus Throw and to reconduct selection trials in a fair and transparent manner. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Discus Throw national para-athlete and has won two medals in Para-Asian Games, 2014. Because of her merit, the petitioner has won a Quota for the upcoming Rio-Paralympic Games, 2016 and is the first Indian female para-athlete to win such a Quota. The petitioner won the Quota on the basis of the International Paralympic Committee Athletics Marathon World Cup (London), 2016 method, one of the qualification systems prescribed by the Qualification Guide issued by the International Paralym...
Nyayaa Path (Ngo) and Others Vs. LT. Governor of NCT of Delhi and Othe ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2016
G. Rohini, C.J. (Oral) 1. A common issue relating to enforcement of Government Advertisement (Content Regulation) Guidelines, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Guidelines') has been raised in all these petitions. 2. These petitions were filed in July, 2015 alleging that the Government of NCT of Delhi has been violating the above-said Guidelines by repeatedly publishing politically motivated advertisements in newspapers, television and radio for promoting the party in power and has been indulging in unwanted and unethical expenses by diverting public funds towards promotion of the ruling party and its leaders. Contending that the Union of India failed to enforce the Guidelines and no mechanism has been created for redressal of the complaints with regard to violation of the Guidelines, the petitioners prayed for a direction to the respondents to withdraw the advertisements which are in violation of the Guidelines and to restrain them from publishing any such advertisements. 3. It is ...
Tata Sky Ltd Vs. Youtube Llc and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2016
IA No. 48/2016 (seeking deletion of Defendant No. 2 from array of parties) 1. This is an application by Defendant No. 2 Google India Pvt. Ltd. ( GIPL )seeking its deletion from the array of parties. The only reason why GIPL appears to have been made a party in the suit is that Defendant No. 1 YouTube LLC itself does not have an office in India. 2. Considering that Defendant No. 1 has participated in these proceedings, and is not disputing the jurisdiction of this Court, and with Defendant No. 1 having already complied with the interim injunction issued on 27th August 2015, the Court sees no reason why Defendant No. 2 should continue to be arrayed as a party to the suit. 3. The application is accordingly allowed and Defendant No. 2 is deleted from the array of parties. I A No. 353/2016 (under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC) 4. In view of the above order in I. A. No. 48 of 2016, this application does not survive and is disposed of as such. IA Nos. 17808/2015 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC)...
Magic Sewa Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Airports Authority of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2016
Manmohan, J. 1. Present writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to respondent no.2 for quashing of entry fee charge of Rs.150 on commercial vehicles and also for a direction to respondent no.2-DIAL to allow petitioner to use the same lane as Licensed Taxi Operators for parking and picking customers. 2. Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, learned counsel for petitioner stated that as a duly licensed cab service, petitioner fulfils the criteria that respondent no.2- DIAL has laid down for licensed taxi operators using dedicated Lane no.1 at Arrival Hall at IGI Airport such as driver training, security measures for passengers including police verification of drivers, fitment of GPS device etc. He also stated that the petitioner is ready to abide by all reasonable conditions and pay any fee for using Lane no.1. He submitted that the contract signed with three select cab companies cannot be used to eliminate competition and create monopoly of a few. Consequently, he contended that the petitio...
In The Matter of: Mukesh and Others Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2016
Hima Kohli, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of three appeals arising out of a common judgment dated 02.9.2011 in respect of FIR No. 330/2009 at PS Kalyan Puri, registered against the three appellants under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC. 2. The appellants herein have challenged the impugned judgment dated 2.9.2011 and the order of sentence dated 5.9.2011, passed by the learned District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge-I/C (East) holding inter alia that they are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, directed that the appellants shall undergo SI for a period of three months each. 3. The case as set up by the prosecution during the trial and noticed in the impugned judgment relates to an incident that had taken place on 25.10.2009, when SI Harpal Singh (PW-14) had received DD No.22A that a girl had been raped. PW-14 reached ...
Mahabir and Others Vs. The State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2016
P.S. Teji, J. 1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Mahabir, Sh. Raghubir Singh (now deceased), Smt. Sheela Devi, Ms. Sarvesh, Sh. Rajender @ Modal for quashing of FIR No.664/2004 dated 06.10.2004, under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act registered at Police Station Badarpur on the basis of the Mediation report of the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2, namely, Mrs. Jyoti Devi on 25.07.2015. 2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question by her counsel. 3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage was solemnized between petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 on 19.05.2002 as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies. One female child was born out of the said wedlock. The in-laws and husband of the complainan...
Karan Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2016
G.S. Sistani, J. (Oral) 1. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner restricts his prayer only to the extent that the respondents be directed to comply with the directions contained in the order dated 20th January, 2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) in OA No. 3095/2013. 2. Notice to show cause as to why petition be not admitted. 3. Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1/UOI. Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. 4. The brief facts stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner joined the services of Cenral Industrial Security Force (in short CISF) as a Constable in the year 1982. In 1998, he was promoted to the post of Head Constable. He was sent on deputation to the respondent No. 2/CBI in the year 2006 for a period of three years. During his tenure as a Deputationist, the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »