Delhi Court May 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.
Verghese Stephen Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ4180
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.05.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby his application under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein referred to as 'the Code') for alteration of charge was dismissed.2. By an order dated 16.04.2005, the Special Judge, Delhi had directed the framing of charges against the petitioner and the co-accused K.K. Mishra. Another co-accused M/s Stejac Video Products (P) Ltd was discharged. The petitioner was charged on two counts. Firstly, he was charged under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Secondly, he was charged under Section 420 IPC.3. It is pertinent to note here that no revision petition was filed against the order on charge. However, an application under Section 216 of the Code was filed on 29.05.2005 before the learned Special Judge. The prayer made in the said applica...
Executive Engineer Vs. Sham Lal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ARBLR287(Delhi); 2007(96)DRJ430
Gita Mittal, J.1. By this judgment, I propose to dispose of I.A. Nos. 11211/2006 and 13058/2006 filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In as much as the applications are based on identical facts, these applications are taken up together for consideration.2. Having heard learned Counsels for the parties, I find that there is no dispute to the material dates. I find that the arbitral award dated 16th September, 2005 was received by the petitioner from the arbitrator. Inasmuch as no specific date of receipt is mentioned, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the same may be presumed to have been received on the same date. 3. The petitioner thereupon filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the District Judge, Delhi. These objections were registered as Suit No. 161/2005 and were listed before the court of Shri Y. Kumar, Additional District Judge, Delhi. The respondent filed its reply on the 26th December...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kamla Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1292
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Deceased, Lal Singh, aged 46 years sustained fatal injuries in a road accident on 19.9.2002. He died on 24.9.2002.2. Vide award dated 13.1.2004, learned Tribunal awarded compensation in sum of Rs. 37,54,600 to the dependants, i.e., the widow, two daughters, a minor son and parents of the deceased.3. The insurance company which was granted permission by the Tribunal under Section 170 (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to contest the case on merits has filed the present appeal challenging the award on the issue of quantum of compensation.4. Since the issue raised in the appeal relates to quantum of compensation, I shall be noting only such relevant facts which are necessary for adjudication of said issue.5. Deceased was aged 46 years as on the date of the accident.Deceased has left behind his wife, aged 40 years; 2 daughters aged 20 years and 19 years; a minor son aged 16 years and parents aged 64 years and 60 years respectively.6. To establish the earnings of t...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1300; 2007(96)DRJ288
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The appeal under Section 173 of the M.V.Act 1988 is directed against the award dated 01.02.2006.2. On 13.6.2001, injured Vijay Kumar Mittal, sustained serious injuries in a road accident stated to be caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle belonging to the respondent No. 3, Harpreet Singh.3. Vide award dated 01.02.2006, Tribunal has directed the appellant insurance company to pay compensation of Rs. 9,39,045/- to the injured. Break up of the compensation awarded is as follows: (i) Medical expenses : Rs. 1,00,000/- (ii) Conveyance and Attendant expenses : Rs. 20,000/- (iii) Special Diet : Rs. 10,000/- (iv) Physical Disfigurement & : Rs. 1,00,000/- Loss of amenities of life (v) Pain and agony : Rs. 50,000/- (vi) Loss of marriage prospects : Rs. 1,00,000/- (vii) Loss of earning capacity : Rs. 5,59,045/- ................................................... Total : Rs. 9,39,045/- ...................................................4. Aggr...
Col. (Retd.) Dalip Singh Sachar Vs. Major General (Retd.), Prabodh Cha ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2007
Reported in: II(2007)BC453; 141(2007)DLT209; 2007(97)DRJ327
ORDER VIII[WRITTEN STATEMENT, SET-OFF AND COUNTER-CLAIM]3. Denial to be specify. - It shall not be sufficient for a defendant in his written statement to deny generally the ground alleged by the plaintiff, but the defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth, except damages.4. Evasive denial. - Where a defendant denies an allegation of fact in the plaint, he must not do evasively, but answer the point of substance. Thus, if it is alleged that he received a certain sum of money, it shall not be sufficient to deny that he received that particular amount, but he must deny that he received that sum or any part thereof, or else set out how much he received. And if an allegation is made with diverse circumstances, it shall not be sufficient to deny it along with those circumstances.5. Specific denial. - [(1) Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the ...
Smarty Machra and anr. Vs. State (Govt of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ4341
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge delivered on 21.12.2004 whereby the revision petition filed on behalf of the State against the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 01.05.2004 was allowed, the result being that the trial court was directed to frame charges under Sections 379/411/34 IPC against both the petitioners and was directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.2. The facts of the case, as per the prosecution, are that on 19.06.1998, the complainant [Shri N.P. Singh] lodged a complaint with the police that on the intervening night of 18th and 19th June, 1998, his car stereo of make 'PIONEER' was stolen from his car which was parked outside his house at J-3/4, Rajouri Garden, Delhi. In the said complaint, it was further mentioned that one Shri Ashok Kumar resident of C-55, Nangloi Extn. had told the complainant that his car stereo was also stolen. Mr Ashok Kumar's...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Shri Rajender Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2007
Reported in: 141(2007)DLT71
Manmohan Sarin, J.C.Ms 6603-04/2007Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.WP(C) 3522/2007 & CM 6602/20071. Petitioner-Union of India by this writ petition seeks quashing of the order dated 18th October, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA 1340/2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned order'). By the impugned order, the Tribunal quashed the transfer order assailed by the respondent. Petitioner was directed to consider posting the respondent and retaining him in the same Division preferably on a posting which was not in a mass contact area or public dealing, within four weeks.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Kumar Rajesh Singh attempted to urge that the transfer order was passed in exercise of powers conferred under the Indian Railways Establishment Code Volume I under Rule 226. It empowers the Railways to transfer an employee who is detected or found indulging malpractice in mass contact area. Such transfers as per th...
Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Dayal S ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Delhi263; 2007CriLJ2799; 2007(96)DRJ763
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. This reference has been made to the High Court under Section 21(5) of the Chartered Accountants Act read with Chapter 7-F of the Delhi High Court Rules.2. Notice in this reference was issued to Respondent No. 1 on 20th September, 2005 but he could not be served by the ordinary process. Accordingly, he was served by substituted service through publication in the newspaper 'STATESMAN' (New Delhi Edition). On 29th March, 2007 despite service by publication, Respondent No. 1 did not put in appearance. Accordingly, by an order dated 19th April, 2007, it was directed that Respondent No. 1 be proceeded against ex-parte.3. Today also, there is no appearance on behalf of Respondent No. 1.4. The following allegations were made against Respondent No. 1 by Ashok Kumar, Superintendent of Police, CBI.i) The Respondent No. 1 remained instrumental in getting a loan of Rs. 49.8 lakhs sanctioned from Union Bank of India, Zonal Office, New Delhi in 1989 in favor of M/s S.K. Trading C...
Vijendra Kumar Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CTLJ168(Del)
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. This judgment decides the above two writ petitions wherein common issue, regarding the applicability of Euro II and Euro III norms (also known as Bharat II and Bharat III norms) to vehicles plying in the National Capital Territory of Delhi, arises for consideration. The question has arisen in the context of stipulations in the tender document relating to permissibility of vehicles to be used for the purpose of contract for transportation of LPG cylinders.2. Vijendra Kumar, petitioner in WP(C) No. 2512/2007, is a transport contractor. He assails a condition in tender No.1PG/TPT/NZ/204 which reads as 'The tenderers to ensure that model of the quoted trucks should not be prior to the year 1996 and all statutory requirements as specified by the Transport Department, Delhi State from time to time are complied with' as not being in conformity with the amendments in the Central Motor Vehicles Rules and not being in consonance with directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme C...
Dharam Pal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2007
Reported in: 141(2007)DLT478; 2007(96)DRJ420
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This appeal filed by the appellant Dharam Pal challenges the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 132/01 in FIR No. 334/01, P.S. Kashmere Gate, Delhi under Sections 302/201/34 IPC. The impugned judgment convicted the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC while convicting the other co-accused Kameshwar, Lal Behari, Raj Kumar and Prem Kumar under Section 304-II read with Section 34 IPC for a period of 5 years and also convicted all the accused under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC for 3 years imprisonment and the sentences were to run concurrently. The case alleged by the prosecution is that on 21st July, 2001, one Jagdish Sahni came to the Police Station and gave a statement which forms the basis of the FIR, which is stated by the prosecution as follows:That he (Jagdish Sahni) resides at house No. 80, Jawala Ghat, Yamuna Bazaar, Kashmere Gate, Delhi and runs a tea shop near Nigam Bodh Ghat, Delhi. He further stated...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »