Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1976RLR11
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) Petitioners, Respdt 5 & 6 were displaced persons from Pakistan. They were occupying property which was evacuee (Saleable). Petitioners asked for allotment of the same but the department ordered its sale by auction. Respondent 6 filed Writ against order of sale. It was dismissed on 27.4.65. In sale notice property was wrongly described as at 'Faizganj instead of at Faiz Road. Auction took place on 12.9.66. Bid of Respdt. 6 was highest. On 22.8.67, Asst. Settlement Commissioner, Mr. S.P. Sud, accepted objections that there was material irregularity in sale and substantial injury took place and ordered re-auction to begin from the bid of objector who should deposit 20% of the bid as security. The security was not deposited and sale did not take place. Petitioner 1 & 2 Respdt 5 filed writag ainst auction. In reply affidavit. Chief Settlement Commissioner had stated that Mr. S.P. Sud had set aside the sale on 22.8.67. Respdt. 6 also stated this claiming that the Writ h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 3(1967)DLT172
Hardy, J. (1) The petitioner Bal Diwakar Hans was arrested on 2nd December, 1966, pursuant to an order of detention made by the District Magistrate, Delhi, on 30th November, 1966, under Section 3 (i) (a) (ii) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, as amended, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The grounds on which the detention of the petitioner has be en ordered are that his activities were highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the Union Territory of Delhi. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and his counsel Shri R. P. Bansal has raised the following contentions on his behalf : (i) that no order of detention was served upon the petitioner either citing the preamble or the conclusion of facts as required under Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act at the time when he was arrested and that it was only after a week or so of his arrest that the petitioner came t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) 1. Shri Bhopal Singh, the applicant herein, desiring to be a Constable in Delhi Police responded to an advertisement issued in 2009 (Phase-II) to fill up 6302 vacancies for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police and applied for the said post under Scheduled Caste (SC) category. He was put through Physical Endurance and Measurement Test, Written Test and was declared provisionally selected against Roll No.938096, subject to verification of character and antecedents, medical fitness and final checking of documents etc. He was got medically examined and declared fit. He was involved in one criminal case FIR No.110 dated 19.08.2004 under Section 147/149/ 341/379/427/506 of the IPC registered at Police Station, Bhawani Khera, Bhiwani, Haryana. The Trial Court acquitted him vide order dated 09.06.2010 under benefit of doubt. The respondents, on scrutiny of Application and Attestation Forms, found that he had disclosed the facts of his involveme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The State has filed the instant petition, while challenging the order dated 15.05.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the respondent has been admitted to regular bail.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.01.2009, a case under Section 3 (2) (4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred as to ‘MCOC Act’) was registered at the police station Nand Ngari, Delhi vide FIR No.9/2009, against respondent after obtaining sanction from the Joint Commissioner of Police vide its order dated 09.01.2009, pursuant to the proposal sent by Inspector Satish Kumar, SHO police station Nand Nagari dated 05.12.2008. In the said proposal, six FIRs were referred to, starting from the year 2007 to 2008 against the respondent for obtaining the approval from the Joint Commissioner of police. The particulars of the six FIRs are as follows:-a) u/S 25 of Arms Act registered at PS Nand Nagari vide FIR No.144/2007.b) u/S 307/506/34 IPC r/w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. These appeals arise out of a common impugned judgment dated 4 th March, 1994 whereby the Appellants were convicted for offences punishable under Section 120B, read with Section 420 IPC and Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short the „POC Act) and for substantive offences punishable under Section 420 IPC and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the POC Act and the order on sentence dated 4th April, 1994 whereby they were directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and a fine of `50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC and 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the POC Act; Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and a fine of `50,000 each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and RI for o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
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 the Digest? Yes1. This Judgment will dispose of connected Appeals No. FAO(OS) 107/2010 and FAO(OS) 154/2010 emanating from the common Order of the learned Single Judge dated 4.2.2010, by means of which an interim injunction on the Plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC for short) restrained the Defendant, Essel Sports Pvt. Ltd. (ESPL) from proceeding against the Plaintiff, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), in Courts in England. The Plaintiff submits that there is complete identity between the cause of action of the notified lis proposed and thereafter actually filed on 4.2.2010 in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, London and the dispute which is subject matter of Suit, CS(OS) No.1566/2007, filed by ESPL against the BCCI presently pending in thi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
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? 1. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.11.1998, appellants Virender Pal @ Neelu, Sat Pal @ Pappu, Sanjay Sharma, Brij Pal @ Karate and Jitender @ Vickey as also one Raj Kumar @ Raju who died during the pendency of the appeal filed by him have been convicted for the offence of having murdered Surender @ Buddha (hereinafter referred to as the Deceased), for which offence they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine in sum of `5,000/- each; in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appellant Sat Pal has also been convicted for the offence of having attempted to murder Arvind, for which offence he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay fine in sum of `2,000/-; in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 months. Appellants Sat Pal, Vire...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may No. be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.3. Whether the judgment should be reported No. in Digest?1. This is a petition for grant of probate of the WILL dated 4th December, 1997 executed by late Shri Anand Parkash Goel, husband of the petitioner.It is alleged in the petition that late Shri Anand Parkash Goel had executed a WILL dated 4th December, 1997. He died on 24 th July, 2004 and was survived by four Class-I legal heirs i.e. his widow/petitioner Smt. Geeta Devi Test Goel and three sons namely Shri Nitin Goel, Shri Rohit Kumar Goel and Shri Ajay Kumar Goel.2. The citation was published in "Indian Express" (New Delhi Edition) and notice issued to the non-applicant legal heirs of the deceased testator was also duly served on them. Non-applicant legal heir Ajay Kumar Goel filed no objection in the form of an affidavit on his behalf as also on behalf of other non-applicant legal heir Rohit Kumar Goel, who h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
PER: D.N. PANDA 1. Two batches of appeals were made against two adjudications done in respect of different imports of ball bearings involving following appellants who came before Tribunal facing consequences of adjudication as depicted in the table below. Both sets of appeals are dealt by this common order in view of similar cause of action and common investigation resulting in similar consequences. Both sides could not inform whether other persons/concerns against whom adjudication was also done by the following order were whether in appeal accordingly this order is confined to the appellants as appearing in the table below: Consequence arose under O-I-O No. 105/2005 dated: 30.11.2005 against allegations in SCN No. 338/XIV/96/2003 Dt. 30.04.2004 Consequence arose under O-I-O No. 100/2005 dated: 28.11.2005 against allegations in SCN No. 338/XIV/96/2003 Dt. 22.11.2004 Sl.No Appellants Batch of Customs Appeal No. Consequence of Adjudication Batch of Customs Appeal No. Consequence o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : LC2010(1)268
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. This order will dispose off an application IA 12828/2009 whereby the defendants seek dismissal of this suit for injunction, on the ground that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction.2. The plaintiffs in this suit seek permanent injunction to restrain the defendants or their representatives from using selling, soliciting, exporting, displaying, or advertising their goods and the services under the mark 'SHOLAY', which the plaintiffs owns. The plaintiffs company is engaged in film production, and avers to being one of the foremost concerns in that regard. The suit speaks of the plaintiffs. extensive reputation, and production of prominent and well- known films. It is alleged that the plaintiffs produced the blockbuster 'SHOLAY' in 1975, which became one of the most successful and renowned films ever. The plaintiffs allege that 'SHOLAY' and its appeal has transcended films, and it has cut across barriers of geography, language, ideology and class. It also allude...
Tag this Judgment!