Delhi Court May 2008 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.
Gurnam Singh Ic - 28082 K Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ505
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner was tried by a General Court Martial (GCM) on two charges, which read as follows:(a) An omission prejudicial to good order and military discipline in that he on 03 July 1986 having collected two official files No. 1209/Accounts (closed) and No. 1209/A/Current from Havildar Bahuguna improperly failed to return the same to the custodian.(b) Using criminal force to a person subject to the Army Act being his subordinate in position in that he at Dehradun on 16 Aug 1986 used criminal force to Late Major AS Randhawa by throwing a chair on the said officer and gave blows on his face.The petitioner was found guilty and sentenced 'to be cashiered from military service'. The effect of this punishment is that not only the petitioner lost his job, it deprived him of his pensionary benefits as well. The petitioner preferred a statutory petition under Section 164 of the Army Act. The competent authority in the Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, though maintained the...
Madan Lal Sharma Vs. Sir Chottu Ram Educational Trust and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2008
Reported in: 151(2008)DLT579
Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. Sir Chottu Ram Education Trust, the respondent No. 1 runs several educational institutions including the Chottu Ram Rural Institute of Technology (hereinafter referred to as the respondent No. 2, for short). The said Institute-respondent No. 2 is recognized by All India Council for Technical Education, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as AICTE, for short) and the Department of Technical Education, Delhi.2. The petitioner, Mr. Madan Lal Sharma has impugned the letter dated 4th February, 2008 by which one, Mr. M.L. Arora, has been asked to function as the Acting Principal of the respondent No. 2 institute with immediate effect. The said letter records that the petitioner who was looking after the duties as an Acting Principal should handover the charge to Mr. M.L. Arora. The petitioner claims that he was appointed as the Principal of the respondent No. 2-Institute by letter dated 24th January, 2008 for the period up to 1st February, 2009. He impugns his termination and ...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Arun Saha S/O. Sh. Mishri Saha and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ1403; 2008(104)DRJ282
V.B. Gupta, J.1. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short as 'Act') challenging the judgment, dated 11th January, 2008 passed by Sh. J.P.S. Malik, Judge MACT.2. The facts of this case are that on 14th June, 2000, the deceased Rajesh Saha died due to injuries received by him in an accident near Ganda Nala, Sarai Kalen Khan, Delhi. This accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DIG 4727 which was being driven by respondent No. 4. The vehicle in question is owned by respondent No. 5 and insured with the appellant. The deceased was doing the work of Kabari and the offending vehicle was dumping the garbage and was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver.3. Vide impugned judgment, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. Rs. 2,80,005/- along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition.4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appella...
Maman Chand Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(105)DRJ84
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J1. The Appellant charged with commission of offences under Sections 302/201 IPC has preferred this appeal against the order of his conviction under both the provisions and against the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs 500/- under Section 302 IPC and of rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs 200/- under Section 201 IPC. 2. The deceased/victim was Ms Vidya @ Vidyawati aged about 27 years at the time of her demise on 9th January, 1991. The Appellant at that time was about 29-30 years of age. There is an admission in the statement of the Appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the deceased was the wife of the Appellant. The Appellant, however, claims to have two wives. The other wife of the Appellant, besides the deceased, was one Ms Shakuntala. Unfortunately, it is not clear from the record as to whom the Appellant was married first i.e., to the deceased or to the said Ms Shakuntala. It is not in dispute that the deceased was murde...
John Tinson Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bank of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(105)DRJ358
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The appellant, which is a private limited company, is the owner and landlord of property bearing No. 54, Janpath, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'). The respondent herein, namely, Bank of India, was inducted as a tenant initially on 21.4.1962 in respect of the basement and ground floor of the suit property. Further portions of the property were also let out to the respondent in stages. Particulars of all the leases and the portions let out thereby are as under:S. No. Particulars Terms of Lease Portions let outof Lease1. Lease deed 25 years with effect 3100 sq.ft on the ground dated 21.4.62 from 12.5.1961 with a floor and 3100 sq.ft inclause for renewal the basement @ Rs.3,833/- p.m.2. Lease deed 10 years with effect 1200 sq.ft. on the back portiondated 9.5.68 from 18.4.1966 of the first floor @ Rs.2,700/- p.m.3. Oral Lease W.e.f. 20.2.1970 Front portion of the first floor@ Rs.2,700/- p.m.4. Oral Lease - 500 sq.ft. on the first floor@ Rs.1,125/-...
Bandhu Machinery P. Ltd. Vs. Om Parkash Sikka and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Delhi33; 2008(105)DRJ267
Siddharth Mridul, J.1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 287/04, directing the appellant/tenant to hand over possession of the suit premises to the respondent/landlord. Vide the said judgment the appellant has also been directed to pay mesne profits at Rs. 25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) per month with effect from 1st May, 2004, till the suit premises is vacated. 2. The plaintiff is the owner of property bearing No. D-854, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. The suit property was given out on rent by the plaintiff/respondent to the appellant/company for use as residence of their officer, namely, Shri Prem Bandhu Gupta vide rent deed dated 1st May, 1998, for a period of three years at a rental of Rs. 19,500/- (rupees nineteen thousand five hundred). Upon expiry of the aforesaid rent deed the parties executed a fresh rent deed for a period of three years from 1st May, 2001 ...
Shyam Telecom Ltd. Vs. A.R.M. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR615(Delhi)
Manmohan, J.1. The Appellant has filed the present appeal being FAO (OS) No. 198/2004 under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1996. In this appeal the appellant has prayed for setting aside of the judgment and order dated 17th September, 2004 passed by the Single Judge of this Court in OMP No. 407/2003 by virtue of which the Appellant's application under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was dismissed.2. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the Respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present appeal. Mr. Kaul contends that in view of Section 37(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Arbitration Act, 1996), it is not open to the Appellant to file the present appeal before a Division Bench of this Court. He submits that the present appeal is not maintainable as the two contingencies in which appeal is maintainable as provi...
Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Triveni Engin ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR575(Delhi); 2008(106)DRJ207
Manmohan, J.1. Present appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the judgment and order dated 20th January, 2006 passed in Civil Suit (OS) No. 2708/-A/1996 and I.A. Nos. 5243, 5655 of 1997 whereby the Single Judge has dismissed the objections to the Arbitration Award dated 30th September, 1996 and made the said Award rule of the Court. 2. Mr. Mukesh Anand, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Arbitration Award and the Impugned Judgment are liable to be set aside on the short ground that there was no arbitration agreement between the Appellant and Respondent No. 1, and the agreement executed between Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 containing an arbitration agreement was not assigned. In this connection Mr. Mukesh Anand relied upon the initial agreement dated 27th April, 1991 executed between Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 1. The relevant portions of the said agreement are reproduced hereinbelow for ready referen...
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Gandharv Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2008
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT750
V.K. Shali, J.1. These are two petitions filed by two separate petitioners who are brothers in respect two separate shops situated in property No. D-19/8, Main Road, Vijay Colony, 3rd Pushta, Usman Pur. The landlords of these two shops are different but the question involved is common. The present petitions have been filed on account of the order passed by Learned Additional Rent Controller on 3rd June, 2000 denying the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Rent Control Act. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred to the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal which was also rejected by Shri R.L. Chugh, the then Additional Rent Control Tribunal on 3rd July, 2000, resulting in filing of the two separate petitions.2. Briefly stated the facts, which are not in dispute, are that the petitioners are the tenants in respect of the two shops. An eviction petition was filed by the respondent, Gandharv Singh in respect of both these shops against Shri Rakesh Kumar and Shri Rajesh Kumar on the...
indus Ind Bank Ltd. Vs. Balvinder Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ259
Veena Birbal, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20th March 2007, by which Objections under ection 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to the award of the arbitrator dated 25.3.2005 have been dismissed as barred by limitation.2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. and respondent herein entered into a hire purchase agreement dated 30th April 2000 by which a truck priced at Rs. 7,67,110/- bearing registration number HR-55 4424 was handed over to respondent by the said company on hire-purchase basis. As per the terms of the hire-purchase agreement between the parties, the appellant i.e. M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. paid an amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- and respondent paid Rs. 1,17,110/- respectively to the manufacturer of the truck. The hiring instalments required to be paid by respondent were a sum of Rs. 21,900/-per month for a tenure of 35 months and Rs. 21,950/- for ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »