Delhi Court March 2006 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Smt. Shanti Devi Vs. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ528
Vijender Jain, J.1. The appellant in this appeal is aggrieved by an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 7.11.2000 dismissing her application for restoration of the suit. The suit of the appellant was dismissed in default for non-prosecution on 31.7.2000. We need not go into the merit of the order of dismissal of the restoration application passed by the learned Single Judge as this appeal before us has abated. The appellant had died during the pendency of this appeal on 7.3.2001 and no steps were taken to bring her legal heirs on record within the limitation period prescribed for the said purpose. One application being CM No. 437/2001 (at page 292 of the paper book) under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC was filed by Sh.L.N. Gupta in his capacity as General Power of Attorney of the appellant. There is no date on this application. However, the affidavit filed along with the above application is shown to had been sworn by Sh. L.N. Gupta on 10.4.2001. The above application being CM No.437/2001...
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. and ors. Vs. Updesh Bakshi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)CTLJ225(Del); 129(2006)DLT182
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 28.8.2004 of the learned Single Judge.2. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.3. The facts of the case have been set out in detail in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.4. The Appellants (Respondents in the writ petition) invited application for issue of license for retail shop at Shahdara Rail Corridor MRTS Station and in response thereto the petitioner submitted two applications. The appellants awarded license of Shop Nos.16 and 17 (Department stores) to the writ petitioner. A copy of the letter dated 28.2.2003 intimating award of license of the aforesaid two shops and forwarding tender document containing terms and conditions is Annexure P-1 to the writ petition. Thereafter the appellants issued Invoice on 23.5.2003 in the name of the writ petitioner giving details of deposits including ref...
Mahabir Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2006
Reported in: 129(2006)DLT542
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. The petitioner has prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued to respondent nos. 1 and 2, namely, the Commissioner of Police, SHO, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi to register a case against respondent nos. 3 and 4 and then take cognizance for alleged illegal acts of theft of a car and various other alleged crimes.2. In our opinion the petitioner has an alternative remedy of approaching the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC. in this connection. 3. As held by the Supreme Court in : 2006CriLJ788 Mohd. Yousuf v. Smt.Afaq Jahan and Anr. and : 1980CriLJ1308 H.S. Bains v. The State (Union Territory of Chandigarh), the Magistrate has got adequate powers to direct registration of an FIR by the police, if it has not been registered. If the FIR has been registered by the police, and the grievance is that a proper investigation has not been done by the police, then again under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate, if satisfied can direct a proper invest...
Kamal Kishore Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2006
Reported in: 129(2006)DLT29; 2006(89)DRJ292
R.C. Jain, J.1. Through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR 429/03 under Sections 423/420/463/464/466/467/468/470/471/474/503/506/192/196/199/120/506/149/34 IPC, P.S. K.Gate and subsequent proceedings taken thereon.2. The relevant facts are that on the basis of a complaint lodged by respondent No. 2 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and pursuant to the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the above numbered FIR was registered and investigation taken up and after completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet stands already filed which is pending trial before the court of competent jurisdiction. The basis of the registration of the case being the alleged forgery of a Will dated 30.10.1997 purportedly executed by late Shri Harbhagwan, father of respondent No. 2. Before the registration of the said FIR, respondent No. 2 had filed a probate case in the Probate Court for grant of probate...
Management of Brahmaputra Board Vs. Ashok Kumar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ602; [2006(110)FLR1026]; (2006)IIILLJ461Del
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 28.1.2004 of the learned Single Judge.2. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.3. The writ petition has been filed against the impugned award of the Labour Court, Delhi dated 10.7.2003. It appears that the workman had raised an industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, as to whether his service has been illegally terminated. He had admittedly worked from 1982 up to the date of the termination order dated 3.2.1994. He alleged that the termination was in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.4. The Labour Court found that the termination was in violation of Section 25F of the Act, and hence it awarded reinstatement with back wages.5. The appellant filed a writ petition before this Court against the award but that was dismissed by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28.1.20046. It has been observed by the learned Single...
Master Vibhor Garg Vs. Sh. Yajesh Garg and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(89)DRJ369
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.CS (OS) No. 1136/20021. The plaintiff has filed a suit for partition against the defendants. The plaintiff has imp leaded his father in the suit as defendant No. 2. The plaintiff is a minor and has filed the suit through his mother.2. The defendant No. 2, the father of the plaintiff, has filed an earlier independent suit being CS (OS) No. 432 of 2001. It is not in dispute that all the properties forming subject matter in the present suit also form subject matter of suit No. 432 of 2001.3. The legal question was thus raised as to whether the present suit can be maintainable in view of the earlier suit filed by the father of the plaintiff being CS (OS) No. 432 of 2001. If such a suit is not maintainable then the suit is liable to be dismissed and the plaint rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC being barred by law.4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that since the properties in question are ancestral properties, the plaintiff has a right by survivorship.5. In m...
Secy. D.S.S.S.B. Vs. Neeraj Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2006
Reported in: 130(2006)DLT100; 2006(88)DRJ523
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 15.10.20042. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. It appears that an examination was conducted by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board on 25.7.2004 for recruitment to Group 'C' posts in Grade-II, Delhi Administration Subordinate Services. There were some allegations of cheating in the examination because of which the examination was cancelled by an order dated 27.8.2004 Against the cancellation a writ petition was filed which was allowed by the impugned judgment and hence this appeal.4. In our opinion in such cases where there are allegations of use of unfairness means in an examination, it is open to the authorities to cancel the entire examination if the authorities feel that the fairness and transparency in the examination could have been affected. This can be done even if there is no clinching evidence that cheating or use of unfair means was resort...
P. Dhandapani and anr. Vs. the Motor and General Finance Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ARBLR274(Delhi); 2006(98)DRJ181
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner entered into a hire purchase agreement with the respondent in respect of compactor-cum-dryer machines on 28.06.96. The said hire purchase agreement is not available on record but a payment schedule dated 01.03.1996 has been placed on record which shows that the price of the equipment was 10,40,000/- and it was financed to the extent of Rs 9,26,000/- in 36 Installments of Rs 26,000. The agreement between the parties contained an arbitration clause and since the petitioner, after availing of the said loan facility against hire purchase of the machinery, failed to pay the Installments, the dispute was referred to the sole arbitration of Mr. Inderjit Gulati. The arbitrator made and published his award on 01.04.2001 and the petitioner aggrieved by the same has filed the present objections under section 34 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act').2. It may be noticed that the petitioner refused to partic...
Delhi Development Authority and ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ637
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 8.12.2003 in WP(C) No. 4740/2000 allowing the writ petition.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The writ petitioner (respondent in this appeal) had applied for the post of Patwari claiming to be a scheduled caste candidate. He was selected against the reserved quota for scheduled caste candidates and given appointment letter dated 18.11.1992 vide Annexure C to the writ petition. The petitioner had submitted a scheduled caste certificate at the time of joining duty. A true copy of the scheduled caste certificate dated 23.7.1981 is Annexure D to the writ petition. That certificate which was issued by the Tehsildar, Sadar, Rampur (UP) states that the petitioner is a Mochi (Chamar) which is a scheduled caste.4. On 4.3.1998 the petitioner was issued a show cause notice alleging that he had falsely stated that he was a scheduled caste...
Shri R.L. Bhalla Vs. Smt. Poonam Devi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ1951; 130(2006)DLT444; 2006(89)DRJ366; [2006(110)FLR915]
J.M. malik, J.1. Admit.2. The parties have locked horns on the issue, whether Dhruv Thapa, deceased, came within the term, 'workman' as defined in Workmen's Compensation, Act 1923. Smt. Poonam Devi and Master Neeraj, respondents No. 1 and 2 moved an application under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, before the Commissioner on 17th April, 1995. It is averred that Dhruv Thapa, their husband and father respectively, aged about 35 years, a workman was employed as Chowkidar since 1987 by the present petitioner/appellant, received personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting in his death on 10th June, 1993. It is explained that cause of injury was that when he was on duty on the premises of the appellant, some accident took place within the premises of the appellant. Again the cause of injury is best known to the appellant. The dead body was taken to Safdarjang Hospital and its autopsy was got conducted. Dhruv Thapa was getting Rs.1,000/- per mont...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »