Skip to content

Filter by :

Latest Judgments Judgments > Court:Delhi Page:3 Sorted by:recent

Jul 15 2014

Sanjay Aggarwal Vs. Gitanshi Polychem Pvt Ltd

  • Decided on : 15-Jul-2014

Court : Delhi

$~16 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CO.PET. 554/2013 SANJAY AGGARWAL Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Sandeep Jindal, Advocate. versus GITANSHI POLYCHEM PVT LTD Through ..... Respondent Mr. Kunal Madan and Meenu Bakshi, Advocates. Ms. CORA M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA % ORDER1507.2014 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J (ORAL) 1. The petitioner has filed the present winding up petition against the respondent company.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had over a period of time given Rs.97,50,000/- as loan to the respondent company. It is contended that respondent company failed to pay interest of sum of Rs.5,75,164/ to the petitioner as was mentioned in the TDS Certificate issued to the petitioner. ================================================ CO. PET. 554/2013 1 3. It is stated that for the year ending 31 st March, 2011, there was a credit balance of Rs. 1,03,25,164/ - in the Books of Accounts of the respondent company.4. It is contended that the petitioner was thus admitted as a creditor of the respondent company and the respondent failed to pay the amount alongwith interest thereon. In the above premise, the present petition seeking winding up of the respondent company has been filed.5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that there is no debt due and payable to the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner had invested money in the respondent company and the amount paid was towards share application money. It is ...

Jul 15 2014

Smt. Nafeesa & Ors. Vs. Smt. Rajwati

  • Decided on : 15-Jul-2014

Court : Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % R.C.Rev. No.453/2013 15th July , 2014 SMT. NAFEESA & ORS. Through: ......Appellants Mr. Ajay Bahl, Advocate. VERSUS SMT. RAJWATI ...... Respondent Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM No.11152/2014 (for preponement of date of hearing) Application for preponement is allowed. CM stands disposed of. RC.Rev. 453/2013 1. This petition under Section 25(B)(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 6.8.2013 by which the eviction petition for bonafide necessity has been decreed by dismissing the application for leave to defend.2. The only ground urged before this Court on behalf of the petitioner/tenant is that the need for which the bonafide necessity petition was filed was for the business of the son of the respondent/landlord, but since the son is already involved in various criminal cases, there would be no immediate need of the suit premises. It is prayed that therefore the leave to defend ought to be granted.3. When the counsel for the petitioner was put a query whether this ground was taken in that application for leave to defend, the counsel had no option but to concede that no such ground was urged in the leave to defend application filed. Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh (dead) through LRs (2010) 2 SCC15has held that the period of 15 days for ...

Jul 15 2014

Manoj Vs. State

  • Decided on : 15-Jul-2014

Court : Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: July 15 , 2014 + CRL.A. 654/2014 LEELAWATI Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Sumeet Verma, Adv. versus STATE Represented by: + ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP for State with Insp.S.K.Rana, PS Anand Parbat. CRL.A. 82/2014 MANOJ Represented by: ..... Appellant Ms.Saahila Lamba, Adv. versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP for State with Insp.S.K.Rana, PS Anand Parbat. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) 1. The two appeals are directed against the judgment dated August 03, 2013 convicting the appellants for the offence under Sections 302/34 IPC and the order on sentence dated October 11, 2013 awarding them imprisonment for life and fine.2. The appeals raise an issue as to the intention attributable to a blind couple.3. The prosecution does not dispute that appellant Leelawati, who is the wife of appellant Manoj, is 100% blind. The prosecution disputes the percentage of visual disability of appellant Manoj. Whereas appellant Manoj claims to be 100% blind, the prosecution disputes said facts conceding that he is 100% blind in one eye and has a visual disability in the other as well. The prosecution has led no expert evidence on the visual impairment of Manoj. But Manoj has led defence evidence by examining DW-1, Dr.Rajesh Hans, who has proved the disability certificate Ex.DW1/A issued by Dr.M.C.Aggarwal, Consultant and ...

Jul 15 2014

Leelawati Vs. State

  • Decided on : 15-Jul-2014

Court : Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: July 15 , 2014 + CRL.A. 654/2014 LEELAWATI Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Sumeet Verma, Adv. versus STATE Represented by: + ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP for State with Insp.S.K.Rana, PS Anand Parbat. CRL.A. 82/2014 MANOJ Represented by: ..... Appellant Ms.Saahila Lamba, Adv. versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP for State with Insp.S.K.Rana, PS Anand Parbat. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) 1. The two appeals are directed against the judgment dated August 03, 2013 convicting the appellants for the offence under Sections 302/34 IPC and the order on sentence dated October 11, 2013 awarding them imprisonment for life and fine.2. The appeals raise an issue as to the intention attributable to a blind couple.3. The prosecution does not dispute that appellant Leelawati, who is the wife of appellant Manoj, is 100% blind. The prosecution disputes the percentage of visual disability of appellant Manoj. Whereas appellant Manoj claims to be 100% blind, the prosecution disputes said facts conceding that he is 100% blind in one eye and has a visual disability in the other as well. The prosecution has led no expert evidence on the visual impairment of Manoj. But Manoj has led defence evidence by examining DW-1, Dr.Rajesh Hans, who has proved the disability certificate Ex.DW1/A issued by Dr.M.C.Aggarwal, Consultant and ...

Jul 08 2014

National Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs. Uoi & Anr

  • Decided on : 08-Jul-2014

Court : Delhi

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision:08. h July, 2014 + Review Petition No.286/2014, CM No.10198/2014 (for condonation of 57 days delay in applying therefor) & CM No.10200/2014 (for impleadment of Union of India also through the Ministry of Textiles and Sitaram Mills Ltd. as respondents to the appeal) in LPA8082012. NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD. .... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Adv. Versus UOI & ANR Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Adv. for UOI. Mr. Arti Singh, Adv. for R-2/Review Petitioner. CORAM :HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J1 The respondent no.2 UCO Bank seeks review of judgment dated 10th February, 2014 allowing the aforesaid appeal.2. We have, without entering into the aspect of delay in applying for review, heard the counsel for the review applicant / respondent no.2 on merits of the review petition.3. We may at the outset state that the counsel who has applied for review on behalf of the respondent no.2 UCO Bank was not the counsel in the appeal and not the counsel who had appeared when the appeal was heard. The counsel now appearing also does not controvert that the stand taken by the earlier counsel in response to the appeal or at the time of hearing was as recorded in the judgment dated 10th February, 2014. Instead of pointing out any mistake or error apparent on the face of the existing record what is done, is to blame the earlier counsel for not bringing the ...

Jul 08 2014

Indo Rolhard Industries Ltd. Vs. M. K. Mahajan & Anr

  • Decided on : 08-Jul-2014

Court : Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CO. APP. NO.25/2014 and CM No.7626/2014 INDO ROLHARD INDUSTRIES LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Manoj Kumar Garg, Advocate. versus M. K. MAHAJAN & ANR Through: ..... Respondents Ms.Vibha Mahajan Seth, Advocate. Mr.Rajiv Bahl, Advocate for the Official Liquidator. % Date of Decision : July 8th, 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI JUDGMENT : REVA KHETRAPAL, J.1. The present appeal is preferred against the order dated 13.02.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Company Application No.898/2013 of Company Petition No.136/2005 filed by the Respondent No.1 under Rule 9 read with Rule 29 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.2. The facts necessary for deciding the appeal are briefly delineated hereunder.3. A Company Petition was filed by the Respondents alleging that the Appellant Company is liable to be wound up under Sections 433(c), (e) and (f) read with Section 434(1)(a) and (c) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Respondents are admittedly shareholders of the Appellant Company and the Respondent No.1 also claims to be a creditor of the Company. By an order dated 16.02.2009, the learned Company Judge admitted the winding up petition and ordered the Appellant Company to be wound up, simultaneously appointing the Official Liquidator as Liquidator of the Company and directing him to take over all the assets and records. The Court also directed the citation ...

Jul 08 2014

Raj Kumar Varun Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

  • Decided on : 08-Jul-2014

Court : Delhi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.190 of 2009 Reserved on: May 28, 2014 Decision on: July 8, 2014 RAJ KUMAR VARUN Through: ..... Appellant Mr. N. Hariharan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gurpreet Singh and Mr. Bakul Jain, Advocates versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Narender Mann, Spl. PP with Mr. Manoj Pant and Ms. Uttkarsha Kohli, Advocates CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT0807.2014 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27th February 2009 passed by the learned Special Judge in CC No.89/04 convicting the Appellant under Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act?) and the order on sentence dated 28th February 2009 whereby the Appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (RI?) for two years with a fine of Rs. 10,000, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment (SI?) for seven days for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act and RI for three years with a fine of Rs. 15,000, and in default, to undergo SI for fifteen days for the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. It may be mentioned at the outset that by the same impugned judgment dated 27th February 2009, the learned trial Court directed that the Complainant, Mr. Mukesh Gupta, be tried summarily for giving false evidence and directed him to show cause as to why he should not be punished for such offence.3 ...

Jul 08 2014

Navalokam Samskarika Kendram Vs. Union of India & Ors.

  • Decided on : 08-Jul-2014

Court : Delhi

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:8. h July, 2014 % + W.P.(C) No.3348/2014 & CM No.6892/2014 (for interim direction). NAVALOKAM SAMSKARIKA KENDRAM .. Petitioner Through: Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Ms. Mallika Ahluwalia and Mr. Mayank Bamniyal, Advs. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: .. Respondents Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna with Ms. Sara Sundaram, Adv. for UOI. Mr. Parth Goswami with Mr. Hemant Phalpher, Advs. for R-4. CORAM :HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J1 The petitioner has filed this petition in Public Interest qua the denial of Arjuna Award for the year 2013 to Shri Renjith Maheswari inspite of declaration of his name as recipient thereof and after preparatory steps for conferment of the said award on Shri Renjith Maheswari had been taken. The said denial being owing to the respondent no.4 Athletics Federation of India (AFI) having found the said Shri Renjith Maheswari to be in violation of the Anti-Doping Rule, the petitioner in this petition, besides seeking a direction for conferment of Arjuna Award on Shri Renjith Maheswari and / or to include him in the list of Awardees for the year 2014, also impugns (i) the order dated 13th October, 2008 of the AFI suspending the said Shri Renjith Maheswari from participating in any domestic or international competition in athletics owing to the said violation; (ii) the subsequent order dated 10th January, 2009, also of AFI of ...

Jul 08 2014

Butna Devi Vs. Amit Talwar & Ors.

  • Decided on : 08-Jul-2014

Court : Delhi

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:08. h July, 2014 % + FAO (OS) No.521/2013 BUTNA DEVI Through: .. Appellant Mr. R.M. Sinha, Adv. Versus AMIT TALWAR & ORS. .. Respondents Through: Mr. Aman Mehta, Adv. for R-1. CORAM:HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J1 This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 1 st October, 2013 (of the learned Single Judge of this Court in exercise of Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction in CS(OS) No.1687/2006 filed by the appellant) of allowing the application of the respondent / defendant no.1 for amendment of the written statement.2. The appeal was accompanied with an application for condonation of 12 days delay in filing thereof. Notice only of the application for condonation of delay was issued. Though a reply is purported to be filed on behalf of the respondent / defendant no.1 to the application for condonation of delay but is not on record, being under objection, though rejoinder filed by the appellant / plaintiff thereto is on record.3. Adjournment is sought on behalf of the arguing counsel for the respondent / defendant no.1. None appears for respondent / defendant no.3, the Sub-Registrar, Asaf Ali Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi and the respondent / defendant no.2 Citi Bank despite service; however they are not concerned with this appeal, being against the order allowing the application of the respondent / defendant no.1 for amendment of the written statement.4. Having gone ...

Jul 08 2014

Manoj Kumar @ Bomb Vs. State of Delhi

  • Decided on : 08-Jul-2014

Court : Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:1. t July, 2014 Decided on:8. h July, 2014 % + CRL.A. 179/2010 SURINDER SINGH @ RAJA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sidharth Yadav, Adv. versus STATE Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Neeraj Kr. Singh, APP with SI Abhishek Kumar, PS Prasad Nagar. CRL.A. 211/2010 & Crl.M.B. 1715/2013 DHARAMBIR @ BUNTY @ BOXER ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Haneef Mohammad, Mohd. Mustafa, Advs. versus STATE OF DELHI Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Neeraj Kr. Singh, APP with SI Abhishek Kumar, PS Prasad Nagar. CRL.A. 212/2010 & Crl.M.B. 1382/2012, Crl.M.A. 10005/2013 MANOJ KUMAR @ BOMB Through: ..... Appellant Mr. K.K. Jha, adv versus STATE OF DELHI Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Neeraj Kr. Singh, APP with SI Abhishek Kumar, PS Prasad Nagar. + CRL.A. 210/2010 KAPIL KUMAR Through: ..... Appellant Mr. I.L. Kapoor, Mr. Satya Narayan Vashisht, Mr. Arjun, Advs. versus STATE OF DELHI Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Neeraj Kr. Singh, APP with SI Abhishek Kumar, PS Prasad Nagar. CRL.A. 213/2010 & Crl.M.B. 545/2014 PREM @ KALIA Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Mayank Mikhail Mukherjee, Adv. versus STATE OF DELHI Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Neeraj Kr. Singh, APP with SI Abhishek Kumar, PS Prasad Nagar. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 By these appeals the Appellants challenge the common impugned judgment dated 25th January, 2010 whereby they have been convicted for offence under Section 376 (g) IPC and the order on sentence dated 30th January, 2010 ...

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //