Delhi Court September 2006 Judgments

Shri B.P. Saha Vs. Dr. Vinit Suri and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007CriLJ1482; 134(2006)DLT616; 2006(91)DRJ209

H.R. Malhotra, J.1. This is a revision petition made under the Provisions of Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the impugned order dated 29th November, 2003 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate in a complaint case No. 206/1/95 for commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC.2. Vide impugned order the Metropolitan Magistrate had recalled the summoning order made earlier against the petitioner a Doctor by profession and D.M. in Neurology.3. The case originated by filing a private complaint under Section 304-A IPC against the petitioner as the complainant 's daughter who was patient of Epilepsy was under the treatment of the petitioner since 1994. On 16th March, 1995 at around 1 P.M. Alpana Saha since deceased had developed fits. Since she had been under the treatment of the petitioner for quite sometime, thereforee, the father of the deceased immediately called the petitioner at his residence . The petitioner arriv...

Sh. Pradeep Kumar Meena Vs. Khadi Gramadyog Bhawan and Khadi and Villa ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 133(2006)DLT202

J.M. Malik, J.1. The petitioner, who, belongs to the Scheduled Tribe was appointed as a Peon in Khadi Gram Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi on 09.11.90. Thereafter, the petitioner passed secondary examination in 1994. According to Service Rules a Class IV (Group D) employee is eligible to be promoted to the post of LDC or Salesman-III, Class III (Group C) post provided he has passed the metriculation or equivalent examination from a recognised Board or University and has also to his credit the three years of completed service in Group D post. Since the petitioner qualified the above said conditions, thereforee, he requested the respondent to promote him to a Class III post. At that time 12 posts of LDCs including two posts for SC quota were lying vacant.2. Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Bombay (to be referred as KVIC henceforth) Head Office issued/circulated the standing order No. 1536 dated 06.06.1996 superseding/modifyingthe earlier standing orders relating to the appointment of Cla...

Kanahaya Lal Kanodia Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 133(2006)DLT330

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 31.07.2006 whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has directed that the case be tried by the court of Sessions. He points out that hitherto the matter was being tried by the Magistrate's Court. He submits that this order has been passed and would amount to a review of a previous order dated 24.03.1999 passed by his learned predecessor when he heard arguments on this very issue as to whether the case is liable to be committed to the Sessions Court or not and decided that it was a case which was not liable to be committed to the Sessions Court. He submits that between 24.03.1999 and 31.07.2006, nothing has happened to enable the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to take a different view. That being the case, the passing of the order dated 31.07.2006, according to him, would amount to a review of the earlier order which he is not empowered to do. He submits that o...

Sharda Kaura Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Complainant through this complaint has sought following reliefs on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party-DDA in not informing her about the original allotment of a flat in Vasant Kunj in the year 1983 and suddenly in the year 1994 she was informed about the allocation of a flat in Dwarka which she declined to accept : (i) Allotment of apartment in Vasant Kunj equivalent to the one allotted to me in 1983 in all respects like value, amount, size, importance and situation etc. on the rates and procedure as was fixed by O.P. in 1983. (ii) Compensation of Rs. 50,000 be awarded to the complainant for pain and mental agony and harassment caused by O.P. by adopting trade practice. (iii) Cost of Rs. 10,000 of this complaint may also be awarded to the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant in brief is that she applied for allotment of a flat in Vasant Kunj area with the O.P. in the year 1982 in Category III in Fifth Self Financing Scheme a...