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.
Kulbhushan Parasher Vs. State Through Cbi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3601; 142(2007)DLT167; 2007(96)DRJ439
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The applicant is accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Official Secrets Act, read with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter 'IPC').2. According to allegations, the Indian Navy found that sensitive and classified information was being leaked. To ascertain the source and extent of leakage of classified informations, the Indian Navy constituted a Board of Inquiry. On the basis of findings of the court of inquiry and the board of inquiry, Sambajee Lal Surve of Indian Air Force Capt. Kashyap Kumar, Commander Vijender Rana and Commander V.K. Jha were dismissed from the services. Apparently, the names of some private persons including retired defense officers also figured during the inquires, against whom action was not possible under inter alias the Navy Act. The Central Government referred the matter to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for initiating criminal proceedings against all the involved persons. 3. The...
Rakesh Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2007
Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ448
H.R. Malhotra, J.1. These appeals are directed against the judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions case No. 80 of 2001, arising out of FIR No. 88/92 registered at police station Krishna Nagar, New Delhi dated 7th May, 2002 convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and also under Section 324/34 IPC besides under Section 27 of the Arms Act and subsequently sentenced them vide separate order of the same date to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine for further imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 302 IPC. They were further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each for commission of offence punishable under Section 324/34 IPC. The appellants were further sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 2000/ each under Section 27 of the Arms Act and in default R.I. for one month each. All the sentences were, however, ordered to be run...
Mgt. of Hotel Connaught Vs. Mr. Om Prakash and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2007
Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ461
Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 31st October, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the application filed by the respondent - workman under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The learned Single Judge while allowing the aforesaid application held that the respondent would be entitled to the wages last drawn with effect from 3rd June, 1999 when the impugned order dismissing the application filed by the respondent under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was passed. It was further directed by the learned Single Judge that the appellant shall pay to the respondent wages last drawn or the minimum wages notified by the statutory authorities from time to time, whichever is higher, for the period after 28th May, 2004 till the disposal of the writ petition. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid directions, the present appeal is preferred in which the learned Counsel appearing fo...
Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2007
Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ736
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an application filed by the petitioner Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, who have sought the expedition of the trial of Sessions Case No. 1/99 in respect of Uphaar fire tragedy. Reliance has been placed on an order dated 4th April, 2002 of the Division Bench of this Court where certain directions were given for the expeditious disposal of the trial. The following directions were given by the Division Bench of this Court on 4th April, 2002:(i) Trial Court shall hold trial of Sessions Case No. 1/99 for 10 days in a month from May except June 2002. It shall adjust its calendar suitably in consultation with Principal District and Sessions Judge, if need be, to explore that no other matter was taken up on the fixed dates.(ii) CBI and its concerned functionaries including its special prosecutors are directed to take steps to ensure that sufficient number of witnesses were present and available on the dates fixed for prosecution evidence and so is trial cour...
Sabharwal Brothers Security Corporation Represented by Shri Hira Lal S ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2007
Reported in: 141(2007)DLT417; [2007(114)FLR622]
Kailash Gambhir, J.1. This is an application moved by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC to amend the prayer paragraphs of the existing writ petition. The sole reason for seeking amendment in the present petition given in Para 4 of the application is that the present amendment is being sought by the petitioner after the incorrectness in the prayer paras was pointed out by the Court. The petitioner after having come to know about the infirmity in the prayer paras took decision to move the present application for amendment. It would be appropriate to give brief background of facts which led the petitioner to file the present application. The present petition is filed against the ex- parte award dated 4.4.1997 passed by the Labour Court against the petitioner on a dispute raised by respondent No. 1/workman against his termination by the management. The petitioner was proceeded ex-parte on account of non-appearance and the petitioner could come to know about the...
Raghukul Tilak Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Delhi237; 2007(96)DRJ403
Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant by the impugned judgment dated 29th September, 2006 has aptly pointed out the paradox faced by the Court while deciding the matter by describing the appellant as 'Eklavya' of Mahabharat, who was equal in skill and prowess if not even better than legendary 'Arjuna'. On 'merits' of the appellant there cannot be any doubt but the question raised is that of eligibility and whether the appellant meets the minimum eligibility criteria fixed for admission to MBBS course.2. The appellant had appeared in common All-India Pre-Medical/Dental Entrance Examination held in the year 2006 and secured ranking of 1600 in the merit list of 2400 selected candidates under the 15% quota. The appellant would have been entitled to admission in a medical college on the basis of ranking secured. The appellant, who was otherwise eligible on merit for admission to a medical college, has been denied admission on acco...
Murari Lal and Anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2007
Reported in: 141(2007)DLT258
S. Muralidhar, J.1. These three writ petitions are by residents of Nangal Dairy, Gurgaon Road, Delhi. The lands in their possession have been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act), along with the lands in the adjoining village Nangal Devat, for the public purpose of the expansion of the international airport at Delhi. The grievance in the present petition is that although there is a scheme for rehabilitation of the displaced residents of village Nangal Devat by providing alternative land in village Rangpuri, there is no similar rehabilitation scheme for the residents of village Nangal Dairy, whom the petitioners represent. They claim that the refusal by the state to provide them alternate sites in lieu of the lands acquired is both arbitrary and discriminatory. They seek a mandamus to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners till they are 'not allotted alternate site/accommodation and are fully resettled.'2. The acquisition of the lands belon...
Dharam Pal, Driver S/O Sh. Tarwar Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporatio ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2007
Reported in: 141(2007)DLT237; [2007(114)FLR738]; (2007)IIILLJ888Del
Kailash Gambhir, J.1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition feeling aggrieved with the order of the respondent dated 30.4.2004, retiring him prematurely after his attaining the age of 55 years after he was found medically unfit by the Medical Board in accordance with the office order No. 99 dated 4/7.10.1963 read with circular dated 30.6.1998.2. The brief facts which are necessary to decide the present writ petition in nutshell are that the petitioner was employed as a driver with respondent/DTC and on 22.7.2003 while driving the bus No. DL 1 PB 5059 on route No. GL 32 (school bus) was assaulted by the traveling passengers of the bullock carts as the bus which the petitioner was driving just crossed through the two carts without even touching them but still the passengers of the bullock cart got enraged and assaulted the petitioner and inflicted serious injuries with the sticks. Due to such injuries sustained by the petitioner, his right hand got partially paralyzed. T...
Sanjay Singhal and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ4568
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The present Revision challenges the order on charge, dated 12-2-2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (hereafter ``the trial court'`) charging the petitioner accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 348/306/34 IPC.2. The Facts necessary to decide this present petition are that one Umesh Garg, the complainant is elder brother of Deepak Garg (hereafter referred to as ``the deceased'`). The deceased was at that time employed as a Senior Manager (Marketing) in the company of Sanjay Singhal (here after referred to as the Accused No. 2) and Neeraj Singhal (hereafter referred to as Accused No. 3). The complainant was the General Manager (Commercial) in that company. The deceased was allegedly called by the accused persons on 16.06.1999 at about 4 p.m. to their office at Sahibabad to enquire into allegations about his having taken commission from someone for the sale of goods. He was allegedly beaten up and interrogated till 9 p.m. He was all...
Manish Bajaj Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2635; II(2007)DMC408
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioner seeks intervention of this Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of an order of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 25.11.05 whereby he cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner.2. The facts necessary for the decision in these proceedings are that the petitioner got married to the second respondent on 31.01.01. A child was born out of the wedlock. The complainant/ second respondent lodged a First Information Report (FIR) on 8th July, 2004 in the police station, Paschim Vihar alleging commission of offences under Section 498A/ 406/323/341/506/34 IPC. 3. The petitioner and his father was arrested on 10th July, 2004. His father was released after three days on regular bail by the Learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate on 13.07.04. The petitioner's application for regular bail was listed on 21.07.04. On that date, his father and the second respondent/ complainant apparently entered into a compromise. The petitione...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »