Delhi Court December 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 12 of about 211 results (0.021 seconds)Brij Mohan Vs. State
Court: Delhi
1. This is an application for grant of bail made by the applicant/petitioner during the pendency of the trial on the ground that the evidence of material witness was over and nothing incriminating had come against the applicant/petitioner. In the application, reference to the contradiction in the statement of witnesses has been made.2. I have gone though the statement of PW1 Mangal Singh. The examination-in-chief of PW1 shows that he completely supported the prosecution's case and has in detail described how the crime took place and Bail Appln. 1588/2010 Page 1 Of 3 what was the involvement of the applicant. He was confronted with his statement made to the police and it is argued that he had improved upon his statement made to the police. Similarly, the attention of the Court was drawn to the contradictions in earlier statement and the statement made in the Court. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner has further drawn my attention to the statement of PW3 Dr. S.Kohli, his cross-...
Tag this Judgment!Govt of Delhi and ors. Vs. Hc Raj Kumar
Court: Delhi
1. Since common question arises for consideration in the above captioned writ petitions arguments were heard in all the matters on 15.11.2010 and decision was reserved. The present judgment decides all the writ petitions.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts are that Section 147 of the Delhi Police Act 1948 empowers the Administrator of Delhi to make rules for recruitment to, and the pay, allowances and other conditions of service of members of Delhi Police. In exercise of the power conferred upon it by Section 147 of Delhi Police Act, 1948 the Administrator framed Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules").3. Rule 5 of the Rules provides that promotions from one rank to another and from lower grade to higher grade in the same rank shall be made by selection tempered with seniority; and efficiency and honesty shall be the main factors governing the selection and that the zone of consideration shall be determined in accor...
Tag this Judgment!Joji SebastIn and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
1. The petitioners have sought anticipatory bail. The allegations against the petitioners, employee of ITI Financial Service Limited are that they had duped the complainant and cheated the complainant.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this application are that the complainant entered into an agreement with ITI Investors Services Limited for investment in trading business of commodities. The trading in commodities is like trading in shares and the margin money is always kept in the accounts and instructions are given to the company to invest the amount in commodities. With rise and fall in the price of commodities, profit or loss to the account holder is there. The complainant submitted that he had been receiving SMS messages from applicants that he was earning profits and when he ultimately checked his account, he found that his account stood depleted. Bail Appln. 1044/2010 Page 1 Of 2 He submits that he was not sent statement of account and the trading was done witho...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Yadav Vs. State
Court: Delhi
1.By present petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 16 th September, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against order dated 31st July, 2010 of learned ACMM.2. The petitioner is involved in a case under Section 302 IPC. The investigation of the case is going on. During pendency of the investigation, he made an application that he was a juvenile and instead of being sent to jail he should have been sent to remand home. On this application being made, an inquiry was conducted by the learned ACMM in the juvenility of the petitioner in terms of Section 7-A of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The petitioner had contended that his date of birth was Crl. Rev. Petition No. 750/2010 Page 1 of 5 29th October, 1993 as recorded in his school certificate of Class VIII and IX. During inquiry it was found that the petitioner was born at Village Khuram Khara, District Gurgaon and his grandfather ...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Sharma Vs. Sports Authority of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
This is an application by the applicant seeking condonation of delay in filing the review petition against the order dated 26th November, 2009 passed in WP(C ) No. 1259/2006 dismissing the writ petition. The applicant has contended that against the order dated 26th November, 2009, he had filed a special leave petition being SLP(C) No. 4865/2010, which was disposed of by the Supreme Court by order dated 5th April, 2010. While disposing the special leave petition, according to the applicant, the applicant was given liberty to file a review petition and consequently, the special leave petition was withdrawn.The applicant has asserted that on account of filing the special leave petition in the Supreme Court, the review application could not be filed earlier and has been filed after the order dated 5th April, 2010 was passed. In the circumstances, it is contended that inadvertent delay is on account of pursuing the remedy by the applicant before the Supreme Court and in the circumstances co...
Tag this Judgment!Dilbagh Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. This petition has been brought by the appellant contesting the Summary Court Martial proceedings and sentence of 6.2.1995, by which he was sentenced to be reduced to the ranks and to be dismissed from service. On formation of this Tribunal, the writ petition was transferred and is being disposed of by this judgment treating it as an appeal under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007. 2. Before going into the versions of both parties, it would be appropriate to give a brief review of the circumstances resulting in this SCM. The appellant returned from annual leave on 29.1.1995. At Leh Airport, he was informed by Sep. Swaran Singh of his unit that he was to proceed immediately to HQ 15 Corps, Srinagar. Sep. Swaran Singh also gave him the desired movement order, which was the authority for him to proceed for such duty. However, the appellant did not proceed to HQ 15 Corps for duty because, according to the appellant, he did not have the requisite winter clothing or money wi...
Tag this Judgment!Nandan Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The appellant has filed this petition contesting the arbitrary decision of the SCM held on 24.5.97 wherein he was given a disproportionately harsh and illegal sentence of dismissal from service for a very minor offence of alleged intoxication. On formation of this Tribunal, this writ petition was transferred and is treated as appeal under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007. 2. The appellant submits that he joined the Army in August 1985 and for almost 12 years, till the time of this offence; he has served with total dedication and sincerity and has never been admonished by his superior officers even once in his entire service. This is evident from the fact that even at the time of his dismissal from service, his general character other than this offence had been assessed as exemplary. Therefore, it was a very rude shock for him when on 24.5.1997 he was very hastily tried by SCM and sentenced to be dismissed from service for a very minor and trivial offence of intoxica...
Tag this Judgment!H.S Dhillon Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Challenge is to the findings of the General Court Martial, whereby the appellant was held guilty of having committed offences under Army Act Sections 45 and 63 and sentenced to be dismissed from service. The appellant filed W.P (C) No. 1624 of 2003 before the Delhi High Court, which was transferred to this Tribunal on its formation for disposal under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007. 2. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is: The appellant, while he was posted to 10 Mechanised Infantry, opened two accounts, one savings account and another current account, with the State Bank of India, Bungal, Pathankot. In the current account, the appellant was given an overdraft facility upto Rs.4,000/- and the moment his salary was credited to the savings account, the overdraft amount was adjusted. During his posting with 10 Mechanised Infantry, while he was on leave, the appellant met with an accident at Patiala, sustaining serious head injury leading to facial paralysi...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Motilal Banarasidass Pub. Pvt Ltd. Vs. Standard Chartered Bank
Court: Delhi
1. This suit is for recovery of `20,53,134/-, declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction, filed under Order XXXVII of Code of Civil Procedure. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff is CS(OS)No. 1429/2005 Page 1 of 11 engaged in business of publication, sales and export of Indological books and literature. The defendant is a banking company incorporated in England and Wales by the Royal Charter 1853 and having branches all over the world including a branch at Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The defendant is engaged in the business of banking including bank credit, charge card services and has been granted licence to use Master Card and Visa marks in connection with the services provided by it to the card holder. It is authorized to issue Master credit cards and Visa credit cards to its customers and appoint merchants for facilitating day to day transactions of sales of goods and services through credit cards issued to its customers. It is alleged that in...
Tag this Judgment!Vishal Kirti Vs. VipIn Kumar JaIn and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. This appeal filed under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is directed against the order dated 4.5.2000 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, in RCA No. 210/1994, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeal and upheld the order dated 5.03.1994 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, whereby an eviction order has been passed in an Eviction Petition No 3/1988 filed under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act on the ground of the alleged subletting of the premises in question.2. Briefly stated the dispute is in respect to one shop private No 1 in property No 5166, Ground floor, Kohlapur Road, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as premises). Appellant is the tenant who according to the case of the respondent sub-let the premises to one Shri Dinesh Kumar Jain after 9th June, 1952 without obtaining the consent of the respondent or their predecessor in interest while appellant himself is carrying on his business under the name an...
Tag this Judgment!