Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-24-2010
1. Sanjay Tyagi, the petitioner herein vide this application is seeking bail in case FIR No. 140/2009, P.S. Crime Branch, Delhi.2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of this application are that the learned Company Judge of this court, while hearing company petition No. 234/2005, titled "Manjit Kaur v. Nanda Tourism Corporation Ltd." arrived at a prima facie finding that Manjit Kaur was a fictitious person and she had filed petition for winding up of the company on the basis of forged and fabricated bills of M/s. Kumar Security Syndicate, a fictitious entity purported to have provided security services to the company, with a view to defraud. Accordingly, a direction was issued vide order date 18 th April, 2009 to investigate into the matter.3. Pursuant to said directions, Crime Branch, Delhi enquired into the matter and the enquiry revealed that Manjit Kaur and M/s. Kumar Security Syndicate was fictitious entities. Kumar Security Syndicate was the creation of one Sharad Ag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-22-2010
These two criminal revision petitions have been filed by Mr. N. L. Manchanda and Mr. Ashok Shetty for setting aside Order dated 13th November, 2007 directing framing of charges against the petitioners under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC, for short) r/w Section 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as P.C. Act, for short). Substantive charge has also been directed to be framed against the petitioner-Mr. N. L. Manchanda under Section 5(1)(d) r/w 5(2) of the P.C. Act.2. The petitions raise three contentions. Petitioners have questioned the impugned Order on the point of charge, on merits. Secondly, sanction under Section 6 of the Act has been challenged on the ground that it has not been issued by the competent authority and lastly, sanction under Section 188 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code, for short) has been challenged on the ground that it has not been ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-22-2010
1. This is a suit for permanent injunction, grant of damages and delivery up of infringing material. The plaintiff was incorporated under the name Ever Ready Company (India) Ltd. on June 20, 1934 under the Companies Act, 1913. The name of the plaintiff-company was changed from time to time and was last changed to Eveready Industries India Limited on April 24, 1995. The plaintiff-company is engaged mainly in the business of manufacturing and trading of dry cell batteries, re-chargeable batteries, flash lights, compact fluorescent lamps, general service lamps, insect repellants and packet tea. The plaintiff-company has 46% share in dry cell batteries and 80% in flash lights in the organized sector. The carbon zinc batteries manufactured by the plaintiff are sold under the mark EVEREADY since 1905 when its predecessor-in-title National Carbon Company (India) Limited came into existence. The plaintiff is the registered owner of the trademark EVEREADY and EVEREADY (device) and it is using t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-20-2010
1. Undisputably, we say so for the reason, learned senior counsel for the respondent conceded during arguments that the respondent Dr.Deepak Kumar was appointed on contract basis as a Medical Officer by the Government of NCT Delhi and was assigned to perform work at the Tihar Jail Complex. Initial contractual engagement was with effect from 16.1.2004 and the duration for which services had to be rendered was 6 months. Needless to state, a fixed monthly payment was made to Dr.Deepak Kumar as consideration for contractual service rendered by him.2. It may be highlighted that no permanent, temporary or ad-hoc post was available and further it needs to be noted that the engagement was purely on contractual basis.3. From time to time the tenure of the contract was extended by 6 months each and the contract for employment was valid up to 30.9.2006 but was terminated vide a communication dated 3.7.2006 which reads as under:- "No./70/34/2005/H&FW;/2053-55 Dated:3.7.2006ORDERThe Lt.Governor, of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-16-2010
1.Calling in question the legal substantiality of the order dated 9th March, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in the present intra-Court appeal has been preferred.2. The appellant / petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to withdraw the notices/orders passed by them downgrading his security cover from Z+ to Z and cancellation of the allotment of government accommodation at 34, Lodhi Estate, New Delhi. The facts which were put forth before the writ court are that appellants father and grandfather were slain at the hands of Punjab extremists for their bold editorial policy against terrorism and LPA) No.293/2010 Page 1 of 14 extremism. That apart, the grandfather of the appellant was a veteran freedom fighter who founded a newspaper publication company, namely, The Hind Samachar Limited, which immensely contributed towards the fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-10-2010
1. Since common question arises for consideration in the above captioned writ petitions arguments were heard in all the matters on 15.11.2010 and decision was reserved. The present judgment decides all the writ petitions.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts are that Section 147 of the Delhi Police Act 1948 empowers the Administrator of Delhi to make rules for recruitment to, and the pay, allowances and other conditions of service of members of Delhi Police. In exercise of the power conferred upon it by Section 147 of Delhi Police Act, 1948 the Administrator framed Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules").3. Rule 5 of the Rules provides that promotions from one rank to another and from lower grade to higher grade in the same rank shall be made by selection tempered with seniority; and efficiency and honesty shall be the main factors governing the selection and that the zone of consideration shall be determined in accor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-24-2010
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ORDER1. In the financial year 2004-2005, two companies namely Rajesh Exports Limited (hereinafter referred to as "REL") and Adani Exports Limited (hereinafter referred to as "AEL") obtained Advance Licenses from the office of The Directorate General of Foreign Trade (hereinafter referred to as "DGFT") under the provisions of Chapter 4 of Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009 and pargraph 4.56.1(b) of Handbook of Procedures authorizing them to effect duty free import of gold bars having 99.5% purity, with an obligation to manufacture and export gold jewellery studded with synthetic, semi-precious and imitation stones having 7% value addition. On the basis of advance licenses granted to them, REL and AEL imported duty free gold, manufactured the final product and exported the same; as claimed by them and in respect whereof the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-26-2010
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes1. The background facts in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9886 of 2003 filed by Nahata Traders & Builders Pvt. Ltd. (NTBPL) and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9887 of 2003 by Nahata Group of Builders & Financiers Pvt. Ltd. (NGBFPL) are more or less similar. The questions for determination in both writ petitions are also based on a common set of facts. Accordingly, these two writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. Background facts in W.P. (C) No. 9886 of 20032. The relevant facts are that way back in 1982, NTBPL the Petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9886 of 2007 purchased land comprised in khasra No. 564/87 situated in Village Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the property in question) by way of five sale deeds dated 2nd June 1984. It is stated that the property in question was give...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-26-2010
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest Yes ORDER1. This appeal raises interesting issues with regard to the concepts of matrimonial home and shared-household and also concerning the right of residence of a wife in the matrimonial home, shared-household or some other place.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and / or order dated 02.07.2007 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in IA Nos.291/2005 and 8444/2005 in CS(OS) 41/2005. The suit had been filed by the appellant against her husband, Mr Sanjay Singh Sandhu (defendant No.1), her father-in-law, Mr Hardev Singh Sandhu (defendant No.2) (since deceased) and her mother-in-law, Mrs Shiela Sandhu (defendant No.3). During the pendency of the suit as also the said applications, the appellants father-in-law (the said defendant No.2) passed away and his legal representatives, being his widow ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-20-2010
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the levy of demurrage charges by the Container Corporation of India Ltd. (CCI) Respondent No. 3 herein in respect of 40 containers. The prayer is for a direction to Respondent No.2, Commissioner of Customs to de-stuff the 13 containers remaining out of the 40 and release them without any further delay. Directions are also sought to Respondent No. 2 to pay the shipping line charges to the respective shipping lines.2. In July 2001, on receiving a tip off about clandestine import of metal scrap, containers imported by the Petitioner purportedly containing aluminum scrap were seized by the Customs Department. The Petitioner was alleged to have imported not just aluminum scrap but scrap of other metals like nickel and tin which were seized and taken control of by the Customs Departme...
Tag this Judgment!