Delhi Court September 2006 Judgments

Madan Mohan Vs. Guru Gobind Soingh Indraprashtha University and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 134(2006)DLT709

Anil Kumar, J.Rule With the consent of the parties the petition is taken for final disposal1. The point for consideration in this writ petition is that if the reservation for Scheduled Tribes is 7.5% out of 100 seats whether the action of respondent No.1 in allocating only seven seats is justifiable and in accordance with the policy for reservation. 2. The facts relevant for determination of controversies are that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe Community. He applied for appearing in Combined Entrance Test MBBS 2006 conducted by respondent No.1. As the petitioner fulfilled all the requirement of educational qualification he was issued an admit card for CET MBBS 2006 and the result of the Combined Entrance Test was declared where the rank of the petitioner was 6250.3. According to the selection procedure, the Scheduled Caste candidates having more than 40% marks were included in the merit list. The candidates higher in the merit list were to be adjusted against the subsidized ...

inox Air Products Ltd. Vs. Rathi Ispat Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2007Delhi53; 2006(4)ARBLR40(Delhi); 136(2007)DLT101; 2007(98)DRJ556

Reva Khetrapal, J.1. The question of maintainability of the above suit in this Court and the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the same has arisen. The prayer of the plaintiff is for a decree of permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants from running or in any manner using the three Cryogenic Air Separation Plants of the capacity of 2x200 Cum/hr and 600 Cum/hr along with compressors, storage vessels and other equipment of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further prays for a decree of mandatory injunction against the defendant thereby directing the defendant to allow access and entry to the representatives of the plaintiff into the premises of the defendant at Ispat Nagar, Ghaziabad (U.P.) for ensuring security and maintenance of the aforementioned equipment and in cooperating in dismantling and removal of the said three Cryogenic Air Separation Plants leased to the defendant by the plaintiff.2. The defendant having fil...

Uma Shankar Vs. the State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007CriLJ500; 134(2006)DLT374

J.M. Malik, J. 1. The trial court handed down a verdict of guilty against the appellant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 376 IPC, wherein a child aged about five years was ravished. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal was filed. 2. The case of the prosecution is this. On 21.12.1998 Shatrughan Sharma returned to his jhuggi and found that his daughter Lalita aged about five years was not present in the jhuggi. He went in search of his daughter. He found that his neighbour, Uma Shankar, was bringing his daughter out of accused's jhuggi. Shatrughan Sharma found blood stains on her underwear. Uma Shankar bolted the door but did not came out when he was asked to do so. The prosecutrix was got medically examined and accused/appellant was arrested for the offence of r...

Raghukul Tilak Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ356

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This writ petition calls for resolution of a challenging paradox. On the one hand is the claim of the petitioner, a candidate declared to be merited, ranked 1600 in the common entrance examination held for admission to the first year MBBS course in the 15% All India Quota, conducted by the respondent Central Board of Secondary Education (hereafter 'CBSE'). The Medical Council of India (hereafter 'the MCI') and the Union of India on the other, deny his candidature on the ground that he does not fulfill the eligibility criteria prescribed, of having undergone the requisite period of study in Biology. Placed in the backdrop of the acute pressure on the limited number of vacancies available in the All India Quota (2400), the dispute raises difficult and disturbing issues involving interpretation of what constitutes 'merit'. 2. The facts leading to the present dispute are few, and largely undisputed. The petitioner finished his Senior Secondary Examination, in 2002, h...

Sandeep Vats Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(94)DRJ233; (2007)145PLR40

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This revision petition is filed against the order on charge passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 12.7.2005. It is also directed against the formal charge framed against the present petition on the same day.2. Mr. Mathur, the learned Counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that no charge could be framed against the present petitioner under Section 120B, I.P.C. read with Sections 467/468/420/419/511, I.P.C. He submitted that the allegation against the present petitioner as borne out in the impugned order is that:During investigation of the case accused No. 4 was also arrested and it is the case of the prosecution that this accused No. 4 from his computer at Chamber No. 102-104 Western Wing, T. Hazari, Court Delhi used to take out the printouts of pay slips of Northern Railway and D.T.C. and used to give the same to the other accused persons for fake sureties. The computer of this accused No. 4 was seized and the data was seized in ...

S.K. Harison S/O Shri Harison and Holy Family Church Vs. State of Delh ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ257

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellant is aggrieved by a judgment and order dated 4th August, 1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No.111/97 convicting him of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. On 7th August, 1998 the Appellant was heard on the question of sentence and on that day he was ordered to be sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of which he has to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. The case of the prosecution was that the Appellant and his wife Kaushalya were living together in House No.31, Village Munirka, Delhi. The Appellant was working in the Indian Navy and was required to go on duty every alternate day. On those days, he would leave his wife and infant son with his parents in Vasant Vihar.3. On 28th June, 1990, the Appellant left his wife and infant with his parents and at about 9.30 pm he picked them up and proceeded to the matrimonial home where they reac...

Amar Constructions Vs. Central Public Works Department

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 134(2006)DLT584; 2007(98)DRJ584

Reva Khetrapal, J.1. This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Clause (ii) of the Scheme for Appointment of Arbitrators, notified vide No. 16/Rules dated 02.02.1996.2. The petitioner's case is as follows.3. The petitioner is a partnership firm duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. By agreement No. 48/EE/DAD/2001-02 vide its letter dated 21.12.2001, the petitioner was awarded the work of construction of ARC Directorate Complex at Palam, New Delhi (SH: Construction of Living Accommodation for Junior Officers) by the Delhi Aviation Division, CPWD, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. The time for completion as stipulated in the agreement was 10 months. Owing to various reasons attributable to the respondent the works awarded to the petitioner could not be completed within the stipulated period of 10 months and from time to time extension was granted by the respondent for the aforesaid purpose. On 12th June, 2003, the petitioner succ...

Shri Amarjeet Singh Vs. Mrs. Sharda Obhrai

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2007Delhi36; 135(2006)DLT190; 2006(92)DRJ61

Vikramajit Sen, J.IAs No. 1149/20061. This Order shall dispose of an application filed by the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for an ad interim injunction restraining the Defendant from selling, disposing off, alienating, transferring or creating any third party interest in the Suit property bearing No. BP-3, NH-IV, Lajpat Nagar, Part-III, New Delhi. The Plaint seeks to specific performance of a document which the Plaintiff asserts to be an agreement for the sale of a Suit property. The document reads as follows:I, Mrs. Sharda Obhrai W/o Late Shree G.L. Obhrai R/o BP-3, NH IV Part III Lajpatnagar do hereby acknowledge the receipt of Rupees 60 lacs in the following manner from Amarjit Singh S/o Nanak Singh R/o D-III/9 Lajpatnagar New Delhi-Rupees 25 lakhs in cashRupees 21 lakhs by pay order on No. 705897 drawn on Punjab National Bank and Rupees 14 lakhs drawn on Standard Chartered Bank (both dated 28th Oct 2005) Pay Ord...

Prem Chand S/O Shri Chhaju Ram Through the Superintendent Vs. the Stat ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ283

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellant is aggrieved by a judgment and order dated 29th January, 1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 36/1999. By the impugned judgment and order he was convicted of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, by an order of the same date, the Appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In the event of his failure to deposit the fine, he would have to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.2. The broad facts leading up to this appeal are that on the evening of 5th February, 1996, the Appellant is alleged to have severely beaten his wife, Maina (deceased). She raised a hue and cry and the neighbours in the jhuggi colony intervened to save her from further beating. The beat constable of the area was called to the spot but when he reached there, the Appellant ran away.3. After the incident, the deceased was afraid of spending the nigh...

Ram Singh S/O Late Shri Kishan Vs. the Secretary, Ministry of

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicants in these OAs No. 1344/2006 and 1524/2006 are working on the post of Section Officer (SOs) on ad hoc basis. They have filed two identical OAs for a direction to the respondents to continue them to work as Section Officer on ad hoc basis till either they are promoted on regular basis or their services are replaced by regular Section Officers.2. The facts relevant for deciding the two OAs, may be summarized as follows. The applicants were appointed as Assistants under Central Secretariat Service Rules 1962 (Rules 1962) and were allotted to the CSS (Grade-IV) cadre of Department of Agriculture and Co-operation. On 31.8.2005, the applicants in OA No. 1344/2006 (Annexure A-6) were appointed to the post of Section Officer (Group B Gazetted) in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 on ad hoc basis in the CSS cadre of the Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operation for a period of one year or till regular incumbent becomes available, whichever is earlier. The order spelt out that the ...