Delhi Court April 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.
Ex. Squadron Leader S. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2007
Reported in: 142(2007)DLT623
T.S. Thakur, J.1. In Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and Ors. : 1988CriLJ158 , the Supreme Court evolved the doctrine of proportionality as a possible ground for judicial review of a decision leading to imposition of a punishment. The court held that while judicial review is, generally speaking, directed against the decision making process more than the decision itself and the choice and quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of a court martial, the sentence must suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be disproportionate to the offence so as to shock the conscience of the court and amount in itself to proof of bias against the offender. The Court would, thereforee, interfere in a case where the sentence, is in outrageous defiance of logic or could be termed as irrational or perverse. That view was reiterated though with a note of caution by the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. R.K. Sharma : AIR20...
Vijay Thakur Vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2007
Reported in: 140(2007)DLT181; (2007)IIILLJ871Del
Hima Kohli, J.1. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being taken up at the stage of admission and is being disposed of.2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alias for quashing the charge-sheet and the order of suspension dated 08.2.2007 issued against the petitioner and/or in the alternative, for setting aside the order of the respondent No. 3 dated 2.4.2007 and permission to the petitioner to be defended by a legal practitioner. 3. In the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner has restricted his relief to the second prayer i.e. for setting aside the order dated 2.4.2007, passed by the respondent No. 3 while reserving his right to assail the charge sheet in the pending enquiry proceedings. 4. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working in the capacity of a General Manager in the Delhi branch of the respondent. He submits that the respondent served upon the petitioner on 22.2.20...
Suman and ors. Vs. Inderjeet and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2007
Reported in: II(2007)ACC732; 2008ACJ970
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. On 8.3.1987, Shiv Dayal aged 29 years died in an accident involving truck bearing No. DIL-3116. He was survived by his wife, a minor daughter and parents.2. Dependents filed a claim petition under Section 140 read with Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988 claiming compensation in sum of Rs. 11,28,000/- on account of the death of the deceased. Mother of the deceased died during the pendency of the claim petition.3. Vide award dated 29.3.2004, compensation in sum of Rs. 2,68,800/- has been awarded by the learned Tribunal.4. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, dependents have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.5. Deceased was employed as a technician with M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. when the accident in question took place.6. In order to prove the income of the deceased at the time of the accident as also his futuristic income, salary certificate (Ex. PW-1/2) issued by the employer of the deceased was placed on record.7. S.K. Chat...
Ex. Sepoy Sube Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2007
Reported in: 140(2007)DLT26
T.S. Thakur, J.1. In this petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner calls in question an order of discharge of the petitioner from service and a mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate him with all consequential benefits.2. The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army as Sepoy on 25th August, 1987. By an order passed in December 2000, impugned in this petition, he was discharged on the ground that his services were no longer required. On the date of his discharge, the petitioner had rendered 13 years of service and served for more than 12 years on the national borders, counter insurgency area and as a member of the Indian Peace Keeping force in Srilanka apart from having served on the high altitude Siachen Glacier. The petitioner's case as set out in the writ petition is that in December 2000, he had an altercation with his Commanding Officer in connection with the refusal of annual leave to him despite the fact that his wife was seriously ill on account of having und...
S.P. Satsangi Vs. Krishna Kumar Satsangi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2007
Reported in: II(2007)DMC425
A.K. Sikri, J.1. By means of this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the summoning orders passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 5.2.2000. These summoning orders are passed in the complaint filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant'). Complainant is the wife of the petitioner. Petitioner and the complainant were married on 23.1.1983. They lived together for few years and three female children, namely, Kanika (aged 161/2 years), Anupama Satsangi (aged 15 years) and Vasundha Satsangi (aged 10 years), were born out of this wedlock. It seems that the parties could not and did not live together peacefully. Some time in the year 1994, the petitioner herein was separated from the complainant. Thereafter, on 27.11.1997, the petitioner filed a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In this petition, in order to prove the cruelty, the petitioner also filed, ...
Kapil Aggarwal Vs. Raghu Vias
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2007
Reported in: III(2007)BC102
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Raghu Vias, who is the respondent in this petition, has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the petitioner herein. It is alleged in the complaint that the cheques given by the petitioner to the respondent has been dishonoured and even when the payment was not made after the notice of demand was served upon the petitioner, the complaint was filed. It is not necessary to go into the reasons which led to the petitioner issuing the cheque and the dishonour of the said cheque. What is to be stated is that summoning order has been passed and this has been challenged by the petitioner, who is accused in the said proceedings, on a very short ground, namely, the notice of demand which was served upon the petitioner by the respondent before filing the complaint is not in accordance with law.2. The only thing which is to be noted in this behalf is that, according to the respondent as per the av...
Ex. Sepoy P. Vincent Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2007
Reported in: 142(2007)DLT252
T.S. Thakur, J.1. A writ court examining the validity of an order or sentence passed by a Court Martial does not sit in appeal over any such order. The scope of judicial review is limited to finding out whether the order or sentence suffers from any illegality, procedural irregularity or perversity of any kind. The Court may also examine whether the punishment imposed by the Court Martial is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence committed by the accused. Is there any room for this Court to interfere on any one of those grounds in the present case is the only question that falls for consideration in this writ petition.2. The petitioner was enrolled as a Sepoy in Indian Army in January, 1994. In the year 1996, he was transferred to 25 Rashtriya Rifles, then deployed in the Counter Insurgency Theatre of military operations in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. On the fateful day of 15th January, 1997, the petitioner was a part of a platoon deployed at Sitengal Post located near vill...
Hotel Pradeep and anr. Vs. Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corpor ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CTLJ173(Del)
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by M/s Hotel Pradeep through its Managing Partner Shri Pradeep Narain Singh, assailing the judgment dated 1st December, 2006 by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 17880-81/2006. The learned Single Judge by the said judgment dated 1st December, 2006 hereinafter referred to as the impugned judgment dismissed the above writ petition. The writ petition had sought quashing of the tender issued on 22nd November, 2006 by the Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd in respect of cell kitchen at Varansi Railway Station. The petitioner in the writ petition had challenged the eligibility criteria in the NIT and had also sought a direction for issuance of a fresh NIT to run cell kitchen as per the eligibility criteria as prescribed earlier and terms set out in the notice inviting applications for empanelment. The learned Single Judge in his reasoned and comprehensive judgment found that there was no illegality or procedural unreasonab...
Major S.P. Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2007
Reported in: II(2007)BC37; 137(2007)DLT362
S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. Aggrieved by his supersession, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari quashing of impugned order dated 16.6.1994 (Annexure J) as well as quashing of un-communicated adverse/advisory remarks in his Annual Confidential Reports. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to hold a fresh selection board for his promotion to the rank of Lt. Colonel Selection Grade.2. Before we examine the merits of the case, at the very outset, we would like to mention that during the pendency of this writ petition the petitioner got premature retirement from Army service from the rank of Major w.e.f. 11.3.1998 (Afternoon)(vide Annexure P-8 at page 174 of the paper book). During the hearing of this writ petition, the petitioner has raised some controversy regarding his premature retirement. He contended that after he had made a request to the respondents for premature retirement on 2.9.1996 and before he was actually ...
Ex. Major R.S. Budhwar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2007
Reported in: 140(2007)DLT626
T.S. Thakur, J.1. In this petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner has assailed the legality of an order dated 03.03.1994 for featuring his pensionary benefits in the backdrop of the following facts:2. The petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Army in June 1974. He was tried by a General Court Martial along with two other Army personnel for committing murder of Colonel S.S. Sahota and Major Jaspal Singh of their unit. He was convicted by the Court Martial for offences punishable under Section 302/109/34 of the IPC and sentenced to be cashiered and to suffer imprisonment for life. The conviction and sentence was confirmed by the General Officer Commander in Chief, Eastern Command on 08th September 1990.3. Some time after the promulgation of the sentence and the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner were forfeited after affording to the petitioner an opportunity to show cause against the same. Nine years after the issue of the forfeiture order, the petitioner filed the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »