Delhi Court January 2007 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.
Mahesh and Smt. Maya Devi Vs. Smt. Madhu
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2007
Reported in: 136(2007)DLT678; I(2007)DMC779; 2007(94)DRJ472
J.M. Malik, J.1. Mahesh, appellant No. 1, was married to respondent Smt.Madhu on 02.05.1995. Respondent gave birth to two children namely Kumari Kritika and Master Shubham on 06.01.1996 and 01.03.1998 respectively. On 21.07.1997, the respondent was pregnant by three months, when she was driven out of the matrimonial house. Their company had failed to bring Joie de vivre to the couple. The appellant alleged that Master Shubham was not born from his loins. Appellant Mahesh and his mother Smt. Maya Devi filed a petition under Section 25 of Hindu Guardian and Wards Act before the District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, UP against the respondent wherein custody of the female child Kumari Kritika was sought. In that petition, the appellants made imputation regarding the chastity of the respondent to the effect that Master Shubham was not the child of Mahesh. Legal notice was sent to the appellants wherein they were asked to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the said defamation....
P.R. Sharma Vs. Avneesh Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2007
Reported in: I(2007)ACC850; 2008ACJ1670
ORDERPradeep Nandrajog, J.1. A limited issue arises for consideration in the appeal filed by the registered owner of the vehicle in question, who unfortunately did not get the vehicle insured. The only question which arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive or not.2. The injured was working as a Constable with the Delhi Police. The accident took place on 19.12.1991.3. Total award is in sum of Rs. 2,75,000/-. The only component of the award which is challenged is the one relating to the loss of future income whereunder Rs. 1,83,967/- have been awarded.4. Petitioner was 23 years of age. In view of the disability certificate learned Tribunal has held that since the same shows disability to be 45%, 45% of the earnings would be treated as loss of future income.5. Learned Counsel for the appellant shows that being a Constable in the Delhi Police, injured suffered no pecuniary loss for the reason evidence on record establishes that he suffered ...
Chunni Lal and anr. Vs. Vidya Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(93)DRJ418
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The respondents filed an eviction petition against the appellants as far back as in the year 1983 in respect of premises bearing No. E-46/2, Hauz Khas, New Delhi on the grounds under Section 14(1)(a), (b) & (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The respondents alleged that appellant No. 1 herein was a tenant in the shop, which had been sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with possession to appellant No. 2 without the consent of the respondents/landlord. Appellant No. 1 was alleged to be in arrears of rent, which had not been cleared despite the notice of demand and it was further claimed that the premises were required for rebuilding purposes.2. The appellants filed a common written statement pleading that one Mr. Bhoj Raj was the landlord, who had since passed away and after his demise his wife and children had succeeded to the property. The respondents were alleged to have no concern with the premises. The receip...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Maikaal Fibres Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2007
Reported in: (2007)(213)ELT583TriDel
2. The learned Counsel for the respondent points out that the authorization originally filed along with the appeal is not valid inasmuch as the same officer has signed as two Members of the Committee. It is his contention that 'Committee' contemplates more than one person.3. Learned Senior Departmental Representative points out that the Committee is of two Commissionerates (Indore and Bhopal) and since the officer was holding charge of both Commissionerates, he was competent to sign for the committee. He would also point out that subsequently on joining of another Commissioner at Bhopal, a fresh authorization dated 6-12-2006 has also been filed. His submission is that second authorization may be taken on record and treated as a valid authorization and appeal admitted after condoning the delay.4. We find merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent that same officer signing as two members of the committee would go against the principle that a Committee has to be co...
Ved Prakash and ors. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2007
Reported in: 136(2007)DLT703; 2007(94)DRJ184
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The appropriate Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') being notification No. F. 15(245)/60-LSG/L & H dated 24.10.1961 acquiring 1 bigha 19 biswa of land situated in Village Nangloi Jat for a public purpose namely 'Planned Development of Delhi' at public expense, in furtherance to which notification under Section 6 of the Act being notification No. F4 (5)/63 P & H dated 30.12.1968 was also issued. Notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act were issued to the interested persons and after giving them hearing, the claims for compensation were settled vide award of the Collector dated 31.1.1984. Upon actual measurement, the land was found to be measuring about 1 bigha and 19 biswas. This notification and award of the Collector was challenged by Sh. Daya Shanker vide CW No. 405/1984 titled as Daya Shanker v. UOI. During the pendency of this writ petition, Sh. Daya Shanker died on 9.1.199...
Ex. Nk. Ramesh Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2007
Reported in: 137(2007)DLT56
Swatanter Kumar, J1. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, and particularly the general principles of law relating to enforcement of rules, regulations and instructions for grant and/or declining of disability pension to the members of the Force, vide our Order dated 5th July, 2006, we had constituted a Special Committee and passed the certain directions. The Order reads as under:In furtherance to the order of the Court dated 4.7.06, Senior Officers from the Army as well as CDA are present.During the course of arguments various objections and lacunae have been stated by the counsel appearing for the parties which in their contention not only results in undue delay in matters relating to the members of the Armed Forces but also hampers the administration of justice. Some of these difficulties and problems are relatable to the non-cooperative attitude adopted by various wings of the Union of India, and particularly the CDA and concerned medical/administrative c...
Ex. Hav. Bhim Singh No. 2978421 Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2007
Reported in: 136(2007)DLT375
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The petitioner was enrolled in the regular Army as a combatant soldier on 11.6.1980 after having been found physically and medically fit. No adverse remarks or deficiency was noticed by the Recruitment Medical Officer in Form AFMSF-2. According to the petitioner because of his hard work and sincerity he was promoted up to the rank of Havaldar in his own turn. In his entire service career he did not get any adverse remark or entry. His service profile was excellent. He served the Indian Army till 30.6.2004 when he was invalided out from military service being discharged on the medical grounds. During this period, the petitioner was posted to various peace and field stations with the Infantry Battalion. Because of the hard service conditions and postings at places of high altitude, the petitioner developed heart problems and was treated in the military hospital for Coronary Artery Disease (D.V.D.) and two stunts were placed by doing angioplasty and he was placed in ...
Shri Pawan Kumar Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2007
Reported in: 136(2007)DLT723
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Sh. Ganeshi Lal Bagla s/o Sh. Nanumal Bagla (respondent No. 2) claiming himself to be the owner of Bagla & Co. (respondent No. 3 herein) lodged FIR 70/99 dated 5.3.99 stating therein that he as owner of Bagla & Co. was manufacturing nail polish with trade mark 'Bagla' and Sh. Janinder Kumar Bagla and his sons (accused persons) were manufacturing the same product under the same trade mark 'Bagla' and, thereforee, were infringing the complainant's rights in the said trade mark. On the basis of this complaint, premises of the accused persons were raided and thereafter, charge-sheet was filed. The learned MM took cognizance of the said complaint and issued summons to Sh. Pawan Kumar son of Sh. Janinder Kumar Bagla, the petitioner herein. The petitioner has challenged this act of the learned MM and wants quashing of the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 70/99 and with that end in view, present petition is filed.2. The case of the petitioner is that he has right to manufact...
inder Dass Vs. D.T.C. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2007
Reported in: 137(2007)DLT520; 2007(94)DRJ491
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This appeal challenges the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17th July, 2001 passed in CWP No. 2091/2000. The said writ petition arose from an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 31st July, 1998 in CWP No. 3700/1997, the operative portion of which reads as follows:There is considerable force in the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.S. Charya. The petitioner is entitled to the relied prayed for. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The first respondent is directed to issue suitable orders giving employment to the petitioner, having regard to the physical condition of the petitioner, in the office of the same scale of pay which he was getting as driver on the date of sustaining the injury, and the first respondent shall pay the petitioner the sum of Rs. 15,383/-. The first respondent shall pass appropriate orders on or before the 30th of September, 1998 and also pay the sum of Rs. 15,383/- on or before that da...
Ex. Sepoy Hayat Mohammed Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2007
Reported in: 138(2007)DLT539
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. On 30th September, 1988, the petitioner was enrolled as Sepoy in the Indian Army and was posted in 13 Grenadiers. He was obviously subjected to strict medical and physical standards. He served the Indian Army to the satisfaction of all concerned. During his service, the petitioner claims to have taken part in Operation Meghdoot in Siachen Glacier, J & K, Operation Rakshak in Counter Insurgency Area in J & K and Operation Vijay in Indo-Pak War in Kargil. On 24th August, 1999, the petitioner proceeded on leave to go to his home town. While he was in his house a huge steel beam and a cemented stone fell on the petitioner from the roof of the house, which was being repaired. This resulted in total paralysis of 3 fingers in right hand and amputation of left hand. The petitioner was treated and was placed in permanent low medical category 'EEE'. He was subjected to Invaliding Medical Board. The Medical Board had recommended the disability of the petitioner as 60% for gr...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »