Delhi Court September 2016 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2016 Page 9 of about 94 results (0.021 seconds)Harbhajan Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
P.S. Teji, J. 1. By this petition filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr. P.C.) the petitioner seeks bail in FIR No.328/09 under Section 302/201/120-B of IPC, at Police Station Jahangirpuri, Delhi. 2. In nutshell the case of the prosecution is that on 07.06.2009 at about 11.17 vide DD Entry No.16A, an information was received at Police Station Jahangirpuri, Delhi regarding dead body found in a car at Sanjay Enclave, Opp. G.T.K. Deport. The deceased was identified as Satish Kumar Balyan. Postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted on 10.06.2009 at DDU Hospital and consequent upon receipt of the post mortem report No.594/2009 dated 18.06.2009, the present FIR under Section 302 of IPC was registered. 3. During the course of investigation, several statements of the concerned persons were recorded and on basis whereof the accused Jagbir Singh and Sunil Kumar were identified to be the suspects in the present case and on 30.04.2...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwari Vs. M.C.D. and Others
Court: Delhi
Indermeet Kaur, J. 1. There are three petitioners before this Court. Petitioner No. 1 Rameshwari is the widow of Pratap Chand. Petitioner No. 2 Shashi is the widow of Surinder Kumar. Petitioner No. 3 Archana is the widow of Mahinder Kumar. The petitioners had suffered an unfortunate fate on 11.02.2007 when (as per the version of the petitioners), the employees of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi were digging up a drain in front of their house i.e. F-225, J.J. Colony, Madipur as a result of which the foundation of their house (which had been built upto the second floor) had collapsed as a result of which eight persons had died. Nine people had suffered injuries. The whole building had collapsed and petitioners No. 2 and 3 were also victims in this incident; they had suffered multiple fractures having been buried in the debris of the building in the said mishap. FIR No. 100/2007 under Sections 337/304-A of the IPC was registered on 12.02.2007. The postmortem of the deceased persons was...
Tag this Judgment!MCD Ministerial Staff Association (Regd.) and Others Vs. The Director, ...
Court: Delhi
G.S. Sistani, J. (Oral) 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 28.5.2015 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (in short the Tribunal ) by which OA No.1935/2015 filed by petitioners herein was allowed but the Tribunal has failed to quash and set aside the Advertisement dated 12.9.2013. 2. With the consent of counsel for the parties, present writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal. 3. The present petition pertains to the post of Administrative Officer/Assistant Assessor and Collector (hereinafter referred to as AO/AAandC ) (Post Code 46/2013). 4. The necessary facts, which are required to be noticed for disposal of the present writ petition, are that petitioner no.1 is an Association of Ministerial Staff of Corporations and petitioners no.2 and 4 are directly affected person. 5. As per the petition, petitioners no.2 to 4 have initially joined Municipal Corporation of Delhi as Lower Division Clerks in the year 1979, 1983 and 1995, respectively. Ther...
Tag this Judgment!Ashwani Kumar Sharma Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
P.S. Teji, J. 1. By this petition filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr. P.C.) the petitioner seeks bail in FIR No.402/2014 under Section 498-A/302/34 of IPC, at Police Station Swaroop Nagar, Delhi. 2. The case at hand, is yet another case in which a married lady took her life in her matrimonial home by consuming tablet quick phos and one tablet paras after assault with family members followed by Giddiness, lose motion, vomiting 6-7 episodes. 3. The present case was registered at the instance of Mrs. Mala Sharma, i.e. mother of the deceased - Neha Sharma. It is stated that the marriage of her daughter was solemnized with the petitioner on 06.02.2006 and out of this wedlock two children were born. It is further stated that on 10th April when the deceased Neha was operated in Saroj Hospital for ailment of Appendix she was beaten by her mother-in-law Madhubala, in her matrimonial home. Thereafter, she was brought to her parental hom...
Tag this Judgment!Ebiz.Com Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This writ petition by eBIZ.Com Private Limited ( eBIZ ), directed againstUnion of India (Respondent No. 1), the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence ('DGCEI - Respondent No. 2) and the Commissioner Audit-II of the Ghaziabad Commissionerate (Respondent No.3), seeks a declaration that the search conducted by the DGCEI on the business premises of the Petitioner eBIZ on 19th January, 2016 apprehending evasion of payment of service tax, as well as the summons issued to eBIZ on 19th and 21st January 2016 by the DGCEI are illegal and ultra vires the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 ( FA ). Respondent No. 3 was impleaded pursuant to the order dated 28th January, 2016 passed by this Court. Background facts 2. eBIZ is engaged in the business of developing and selling various online/offline educational software packages as well as providing holiday accommodation booking packages. eBIZ is registered with the Service Tax Department (ST Department) and has been...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Vs. Shashi Malik and Others
Court: Delhi
Sanjiv Khanna, J. 1. The Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board in these intra-Court appeals impugns the judgment dated 11th February, 2015 passed in Writ Petition (C)No.2118/2012 titled Anil Kumar Nasa and Ors. Vs. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board and Writ Petition (C)No.2117/2012 titled Shashi Malik and Ors. Vs. The Chief Executive Officer and Ors. The appellant also impugns the order of the Single Judge dated 14th March, 2016, whereby the review petitions filed by them have been dismissed. 2. The appellant had earlier challenged the judgment dated 11 th February, 2015 in LPA No.484/2015 titled Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board and Anr. Vs. Shashi Malik and Ors and LPA No.492/2015 titled Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board and Anr. Vs. Anil Kumar Nasa and Ors. The said intra-Court appeals were dismissed as not pressed, observing that if the appellant would seek review of the order dated 11th February, 2015, the Single Judge would bestow consideration as per the review juris...
Tag this Judgment!Monika Arora Vs. Neeraj Kohli and Another
Court: Delhi
Jayant Nath, J. (Oral) CM Nos. 31577-78/2016 (exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM(M) 850/2016 and CM No. 31576/2016 (stay) 1. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 02.08.2016 whereby an application under Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioner seeking re-transfer of the suit back to the High Court on the ground that the dispute involved in the suit is a commercial dispute covered under the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) was dismissed. The trial court concluded that there is no commercial dispute involved in the present case. 2. The suit was initially filed before this court and was transferred vide order dated 04.12.2015 pursuant to a notification issued by this court vide Circular dated 24.11.2015. Subsequently, on 28.04.2016 this court issued another circular as addendum to the circular dated 24.11.2015 stating that ...
Tag this Judgment!Yahoo! Inc Vs. Sanjay Patel and Others
Court: Delhi
1. This suit by Yahoo! Inc., a corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA, having its registered office in California, is directed against Apricot Foods Pvt. Ltd. ( AFPL ) (Defendant No.2), Mr. Sanjay Patel (Defendant No.1) Director of AFPL and Shri Jee Traders (Defendant No.3), seeking permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from infringing the Plaintiff s trademark, passing off, damages and deliveryup etc. 2. Summons in the suit and notice in the application were issued on 10th April 2015. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under: Issue notice, returnable before the Court on 27.7.2015. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of the trademark YAHOO. It has been registered in India in various Classes including Classes 29 and 30, which covers snack foods, snack mixer, snack bar, pretzels, tortilla chips, etc. The defendants are stated to be infringing the plaintiff s trademark by manufacturing and marketing products falling in Classes 29 and 30...
Tag this Judgment!Paramjit Kaur and Others Vs. Teja Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral) RSA No. 143/2013 1. Counsels for the parties state that this appeal be disposed of as compromised and appeal would not be pressed on merits inasmuch as, the respondent no.8/Sh. Kimti Lal has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 4 lacs to the appellants in full and final satisfaction of any claim which the appellants may have in the suit property bearing no. 20/51, First Floor, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. Accordingly, respondent no.8/Sh. Kimti Lal will pay a sum of Rs.4 lacs to the appellants within a period of eight weeks from today, and on receipt of which amount the rights of the appellants in the property bearing no.20/51, First Floor, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi, as claimed by the appellants would stand satisfied. It is also agreed that in case the amount of Rs.4 lacs as agreed above is not paid by the respondent no.8 to the appellants within a period of eight weeks then respondent no.8 will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum simple on this am...
Tag this Judgment!Mukesh Kapil Vs. Parag P Tripathi and Others
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The disputes in the 3 captioned appeals relate to property bearing municipal number 14, Bazar Lane, Babar Road, New Delhi. 2. By and under a perpetual lease executed by the Governor General Council on April 04, 1939 land ad-measuring 212 sq.yards bearing municipal No.14, Bazar Lane, Babar Road, New Delhi was demised in perpetuity in the name of late Darshan Lal Kapil, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant in the three appeals. He constructed a building thereon and after a few years desired redevelopment thereof. On February, 1992 he entered into an Agreement with Ranjit Towers India Pvt. Ltd., impleaded as respondent No.3 in the three appeals. 3. It is a typical collaboration arrangement. Respondent No.3 undertook to demolish the existing construction and re-build a building thereon incurring expenses and additionally pay money to the owner of the land and in lieu thereof a share in the reconstructed building being its. In the instant case, the agreement...
Tag this Judgment!