Achievements & Credentials

Team members of Makhija & Associates have successfully argued matters on important issues relating to Criminal laws, laws relating to the division of businesses, and estates

Our Cases have been widely reported in the National Dailies.

Times of India August 12, 2018
Indian Press News in National Daily
https://m.timesofindia.com/city/delhi/CBI-rapped-for-abuse-of-law-3-former-bankers-acquitted-in-14-year-old-case/articleshow/64819055.cms

NOTEABLE CASES

Major Judgments & Relief at District Court :



1. C.B.I. vs.Om Prakash Aggarwal M.D. M/s Delhi Petroleum Products Limited Offence alleged : Under Sections 120.B r/w sec. 420 IPC and sec. 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act. All the accused persons are hereby acquitted of the charge u/s 120.B r/w sec. 420 IPC and sec. 13 (2) r/wsec. 13 (1) (d) of PC Act framed against them. Final order : Acquittal A.3, A.4 and A.5 further stand acquitted of the offence u/s 13 (2) r/w sec. 13 (1) (d) of PC Act , besides A.1 and A.2 who also stand acquitted of the offence u/s 420 IPC.

2. M/s Orient Ceramics and Industries Limited vs. Sh. Vikas Singhal Offence alleged : Under Section 138 NI Act Plea of the accused : Not pleaded guilty Final order : Acquittal Proprietor of M/s Singhal’s Marble Shoppe

3. Sh. K. S. Bakshi S/o Sh. S. S. Bakshi VERSUS 1. Sh. Anuj Nath S/o Late Sh. Surinder Nath Suit for : Possession, Mesne Profits and Damages the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed. No order as to cost in favour of our Client

4. State vs Bachraj FIR No.236/10 PS : Fatehpur Beri Offence alleged:U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC Final Order : Both accused persons are acquitted of all the offences punishable u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC. Their earlier bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled and discharged.

5. State versus Sarita Cr Rev 24 of 2017 Final Order : The Court observe -To my mind, the entire material on the record nowhere creates a strong suspicion the respondents have committed the offence in question. I do not find any infirmity in the order dated 25.10.2016 passed by Ld. Trial Court.The revision petition is dismissed.

6. State v. Sarita FIR No. 203/10 Offence alleged:U/s 420/468/448/34 IPC Final Order on Charge : The Court Observes-in my considered opinion, even the charge u/s 448 IPC against the accused is groundless. Accused persons are accordingly discharged from all the offences under Sections 420/468/448/34 IPC.

7. Sh. Anil Seth S/o Late Sh. K.P.Seth VERSUS Mrs. Surjit Ahuja Subject of Suit : Suit for permanent & mandatory injunction Final Order : The Court Observe-In view of the above, the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed and the defendant in person is restrained from raising construction or selling the portion over and above the second floor of the suit property during her lifetime. Costs of the suit are also awarded to the plaintiffs.Decree sheet be prepared

8. Delhi Administration / Food Inspector Department of PFA VS Jitender Offence alleged : under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA Act) Final Order : The Court Obseve-the accused persons in the present case are acquitted as no case of misbranding is made out against them.

9. The Fedral Bank Ltd vs Opson Trading Company Offence alleged : COMPLAINT FILED UNDER SECTION 138, SECTION 142 READ WITH SECTION 141 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881. Final Order : The Court Observe-For the reasons discussed herein above, the complainant has failed to prove that the said cheque was issued by the accused and it was issued in discharge of legal liability towards Secos India Pvt. Ltd. The complainant has failed to prove its case. therefore, the accused Jameela Siddiqui is acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 138 N.I. Act

10. Food inspector,DEPARTMENT OF PFA GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI vs Vineet jain Offence alleged : COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 16 OF THE PFA ACT 1954Final Order : Accused Discharged

11. Rukmani Devi, W/o Sh. Satya Dev Tyagi, vs Dharamvir S/o Sh. Ramchander Tyagi, Offence alleged : offence under Section 138, NI Act : Final Order : The Court Oberved-this court is of the view that the accused has been able to raise a probable defence that the impugned cheque was not given for the discharge of any legally enforceable liability. Consequently, accused Dharamvir is acquitted of the offence under Section 138, NI Act.

Major Judgments & Relief at High Court :



1. G P Bhatia vs DEE KAY INC & ORS C.R.P. 160/2011 Suit for : Recovery of Dues Final Order : The Court Observe- the impugned judgment suffers from an illegalit lt is accordingly set aside Ihe suit of the plaintiff is decreed in the sum of 12.65,044- 1s decrecd. Plaintiff is also entitled to pendente lite and future interest R9% per annum till realization. Pitition is disposed of.

2. G P Bhatia vs KESAR COMMUNICATIONS PVT LTD & ORS Suit for : Recovery of Dues Final Order : The Court Observe- In this background, petition deserves to be allowed. The whole case of the petitioner is bordered upon the acknowledgements purported to have been signed by the defendant which were never disputed by the defendant in the reply to the legal notice wherein he has admitted his liability. In this background, the impugned judgment suffers from an illegality. It is accordingly set aside. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in the sum of 77,22,676.40 is decreed. Plaintiff is also entitled to pendente lite and future interest @9% per annum till realization. 11 Petition is disposed of.

3. MAJOR SUDEEP SINGH (RETD) & ANR Vs VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA & ORS CM(M) 1291/2019 & CM APPLs. 39246/2019, 46971/2019 Suit for : This petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 16th August, 2019 by which the appeal filed by the Petitioners/Appellants/Defendants before the ld. Additional District Judge Final Order : The Court Observe-With these observations, the petition is disposed of, upholding theinterim arrangement put in place by the trial court. All pending applications are disposed of.

4. SH. INDERJIT BAJAJ & ORS. Vs SH. SUBHASH CHANDER BAJAJ & ORS Suit for : The petition is filed by the Petitioner challenging the awardMarch, 2009 passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator Final Order : The Court Observe-The Ld. Arbitrator's finding that it required registration is thus clearly erroneous and is not sustainable. The award is accordingly set aside to the extent that it holds the Memorandum of family settlement dated 30" July, 1997 as being invalid. The remaining portion of this award is not under challenge. It is held that all the parties shall be bound by the Memorandum of family settlement dated 30th July, 1997. OMP is allowed in the above terms.

6. Rukmani Devi, W/o Sh. Satya Dev Tyagi, vs Dharamvir S/o Sh. Ramchander Tyagi, Offence alleged : offence under Section 138, NI Act : Final Order : The Court Oberved-this court is of the view that the accused has been able to raise a probable defence that the impugned cheque was not given for the discharge of any legally enforceable liability. Consequently, accused Dharamvir is acquitted of the offence under Section 138, NI Act.

5. State v. Anuj Nath, Offence alleged : violation of Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) : Final Order : the court has granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, Anuj Nath, subject to certain conditions, as detailed in the previous summary. The court emphasizes that this decision regarding anticipatory bail does not impact the merits of the case itself. Additionally, "Dasti" indicates that a copy of the order should be handed over immediately to the concerned parties.

7. Ghanshyam Dass & Ors. v. Rajneesh Gupta & Ors. , Suit For : property disputes and the partition of assets within a joint family : Final Order : Partition suit decided in favour of Ghanshyam Dass & Ors. after nearly 30 years and within 3 years of taking over the case.

8. Anuj Nath and Ors. vs Narender Nath and Ors, Suit For : the partition of a property and the declaration of shares among the parties involved: Final Order : for case CS(OS) 243/2015, the court issued a preliminary decree for the partition of House No. 2526, Churiwalan, Delhi, referred to as the "suit property." This decree determined the percentage share of each party in the property. Plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 were allocated 5.56% each, Defendants No. 1a to 1d received 4.17% each, Defendant No. 2 was granted 16.67%, and the remaining parties received their respective portions. Recognizing the impracticality of physically dividing the property, the court directed that the suit property should be sold through an auction. The case was scheduled for further consideration on May 26, 2022. This order set the groundwork for the property's partition by specifying the shares of the involved parties and outlining the sale process through auction.

Imortant Weblinks :

REACH US AT :

Manish Makhija, Advocate
Makhija & Associates
Address : B-3/57 Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi - 110029, India
Phone : +91 9810043363, +91 8826079887
E-mail :
makhijam@rediffmail.com,
advocatemakhija@gmail.com

Copyright © 2020  Makhija & Associates. All rights reserved.
website crafted by www.royalglobalusa.com