Delhi Court October 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 9 of about 99 results (0.021 seconds)Veena Vs State
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? NO3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO in Digest?ORDER.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the Order No. F.18/166/2010/Home (G)/3066 dated 17.6.2010 passed by the respondent Govt. of NCT of Delhi, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for grant of parole.2. The petitioner was convicted under Section 302 of IPC for committing murder of her first husband. Her appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 15.10.2009. The petitioner, who presumably was on bail at the time of dismissal of her appeal, surrendered on 28.10.2009 and was sent to judicial custody to undergo the sentence awarded to her. Since she intended to prefer a Special Leave Petition against the order of this Court on 15.10.2009, dismissing the appeal filed by her, she applied to the respondent for grant of parole. The request having been r...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Varun Co-op. Group Housing Socity Ltd. Vs Delhi Development Autho ...
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES2. To be referred to Reporter or not? YES3. Whether the judgment should be YES reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. The petitioner, a registered co-operative society, applied to Delhi Development Authority (DDA) / respondent No. 1 for allotment of land to construct flats for its members. Provisional offer letters were issued to the petitioner society and other co-operative societies on the basis of the seniority vide letter dated 18.11.1993 demanding certain amounts to be deposited within 45 days. The petitioner society had a grievance about the rates charged and challenged the same by filing writ proceedings, which were subsequently withdrawn. The petitioner society thereafter deposited some amount, wanted to withdraw the request for allotment, changed its mind and all this resulted in various communications with DDA. DDA wanted to refund the amount to the petitioner society and even sent the amount back. The p...
Tag this Judgment!Cadre Estate Pvt Ltd. Vs Salochna Goyal and ors
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes 1. There are two questions that arise for consideration in this petition. The first concerns the question of maintainability of this petition which challenges the order dated 18th December 2009 of a learned Arbitrator in an application filed by Respondent No.1 under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (AC Act). The second question, which arises if the petition is held to be maintainable, is as to who is a proper party to an arbitration proceedings? Background Facts2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is by M/s Cadre Estate Private Limited (CEPL) which claims to have purchased a property bearing No. L-10, New Delhi South Extension Part-II, New Delhi admeasuring 495 sq. yards (property in question) on 31st December, 2008 for a consideration of Rs.7.50 crores by virtue of...
Tag this Judgment!Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar and anr. Vs Union Public Service Commission ...
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. Every year, Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "UPSC") conducts Civil Services Examination for the purposes of recruitment to Indian Administrative Service and other allied services. So high are the expectations of some candidates that on not finding success, they resort to litigation as they earnestly believe that by no reasonable process of evaluation, could they achieve such low level of success. We find that virtually every year same ritualistic pleas are urged, notwithstanding that the issue has been debated repeatedly and Courts have held, that though not a perfect situation, in the absence of a better alternative, the procedures followed by UPSC while evaluating the answer sheets do not warrant judicial interference. We had heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the re...
Tag this Judgment!Hdfc Bank Limited Vs. O.P. Choudhary
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral): 1. The short facts of the case are that the complainant had a savings bank account since 1.10.2001 with the OP HDFC Bank. He approached the OP for an overdraft facility which was provided after he pledged his four LIC Policies amounting to Rs. Three lakh as Security. In the month of August 2003 the complainant asked the OP Bank to give the details of the overdraft loan in order to enable him to settle the accounts and to return his policies and not to adjust the amount of the Policies towards the loan of Rs. 3,25,000 approximately (matured being over-draft Rs. Three lakh), which the Bank did not supply. On 28.1.2003 the Bank adjusted Rs. 1,17,309.31p of the policies towards his loan account prematurely surrendering the policies amounting to Rs. 3,21,078. 2. The complainant, therefore lodged a complaint before the District Consumer Forum with a prayer that the Bank be directed to give final figures of the overdraft account for settling his accounts an...
Tag this Judgment!Ashwani Kumar Vs. Setia Travels Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
M.L. Sahni, Member (Judicial): 1. This appeal filed by the complainant is directed against the order dated 18.3.2008 passed by the District Forum (Central) Kashmere Gate, Delhi whereby the complaint case No. 578/2004 filed by the Appellant had been dismissed. 2. The case of the Appellant before us is that he booked the return ticket from Delhi to New York on 13.12.2003 through the Respondent who is a Travel Agent. The ticket was booked of Royal Jordan Airlines and the Appellant paid a sum of Rs. 42,250 to the Respondent as fair of this ticket. 3. It is alleged that due to personal reasons Appellant could not board the flight on 13.12.2003 and requested the Respondent to book ticket on other Airline. The respondent got a ticket booked from Air India for Flight to be flown on 19th and 20th December, 2003. 4. The Appellant paid Rs. 9,500 extra as flight charges to the Respondent. Appellant reached the airport on the night intervening 19-20, December, 2003 at around 3.00 a.m. in the mornin...
Tag this Judgment!Director of Education and ors. Vs Baboo Lal Sharma
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. Pertaining to the educational qualification specified as essential, relevant part of the Recruitment Rule for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) as originally framed by the petitioner i.e. The Govt. of NCT Delhi reads as under:- "B.A.(Hons) in one of the Modern Indian Languages (MIL) concerned or B.A. with MIL concerned as one of the Elective subject from a recognized university having 45% marks in aggregate with one additional language or one school subject as Degree level OR Equivalent oriental degree in MIL concerned from a recognized university having 45% marks in aggregate OR(FOR APPOINTMENT AS HINDI TEACHERS ONLY) Sahitya Rattan of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag having secured at least 45% marks in aggregate with English in Matriculation provided further that requirement as to minimum of 45% marks...
Tag this Judgment!Razia Begum Vs State Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?1.These two petitions have been filed assailing order dated 29th October, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge. One petition has been filed by the Smt. Razia Begum widow of the deceased Abdul Rauf and other has been filed by her father-in-law, brothers-in-law and others who were made respondents in the application under Section 22 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short Domestic Violence Act) by Razia Begum. 1). In her application under Domestic Violence Act, Razia Begum had made 11 respondents and she specified her relations with respondents as under:2). That the complainant/aggrieved person married to one Abdul Rauf on 1.10.1995 who was the son of respondents no. 3, 7 & 9 and brother of respondents no. 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10 & 11 and dewar (brother-in-law) of respondent no.6. That the marr...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rub and ors. Vs Razia Begum
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?1.These two petitions have been filed assailing order dated 29th October, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge. One petition has been filed by the Smt. Razia Begum widow of the deceased Abdul Rauf and other has been filed by her father-in-law, brothers-in-law and others who were made respondents in the application under Section 22 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short Domestic Violence Act) by Razia Begum. 1). In her application under Domestic Violence Act, Razia Begum had made 11 respondents and she specified her relations with respondents as under:2). That the complainant/aggrieved person married to one Abdul Rauf on 1.10.1995 who was the son of respondents no. 3, 7 & 9 and brother of respondents no. 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10 & 11 and dewar (brother-in-law) of respondent no.6. That the marr...
Tag this Judgment!Babar Road Colony Lease Holder Association. Vs Sh. Anand Bakshi and or ...
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NoORDER.1.Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner for setting aside order dated 5th August, 2010, passed by Additional District Judge, New Delhi.2. Brief facts are that petitioner is a resident welfare association registered under the Societies Registration Act. In general body meeting of the association held on 21st September, 2008 Sh. A. K. Goel was unanimously elected as President of petitioners association for two years i.e 2008-2010.3. On 10th September, 2009, a notice under signatures of respondent no. 3 was circulated on behalf of petitioners association for meeting/formal get together of the members. Petitioner issued a legal notice asking respondent no. 3 to withdraw its notice dated 10 th September, 2009. Members of Managing Committee of petitioners...
Tag this Judgment!