Delhi Court December 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 16 of about 211 results (0.021 seconds)Rajasthan Roadways Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Mukesh and ors.
Court: Delhi
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.1.By way of this appeal, the Rajasthan Roadways Transport Corporation seeks to assail the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed in a claim petition under Section MAC APP. NO. 385/2008 Page 1 of 9 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') filed by the respondents no.1 to 5 herein seeking compensation of ` 35,00,000/- for the death of their bread-earner Inderjeet, who sustained fatal injuries while driving a Maruti Esteem car, on account of the rash and negligent driving of a bus bearing no. RJ-06P-0947 belonging to the appellant herein and driven by the respondent no.6 Rattan Giri. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after considering the evidence adduced by the parties awarded compensation in the sum of ` 20,80,000/- inclusive of the interim award, with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till its realization, and held the appellant and the respondent no.6, jointly and severall...
Tag this Judgment!Gajraj Singh and anr. Vs. Balraj Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.1. The appellants in this appeal are the parents of Sanjeev Singh Chauhan, who was fatally injured in a motor vehicle accident on 22nd May, 1995 caused by bus No.DL-1P-5426. The respondent No.1 is the driver of the offending bus, the respondent No.2 is the owner and MAC APP. No.377-78/2006 Page 1 of 9 the respondent No.3 is the insurer, which has not disputed the fact that the offending vehicle was duly insured with it at the time of the accident.2. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after considering the evidence on record passed an award of ` 2,69,600/- in favour of the appellants No.1 and 2 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till realization. Aggrieved therefrom, the appellants have filed the present appeal for enhancement of the award amount.3. Mr. Navneet Goyal, the learned counsel for the appellants assailed the award on the following three grounds:- (i) The learned Tribunal erred in taking the income...
Tag this Judgment!Joginder Sansanwal Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 9th March, 2010 passed by learned MM, New Delhi whereby he dismissed a complaint of the petitioner holding that no offence against the accused persons was made out.2. A perusal of complaint and the order of the learned MM would show that as per the allegations of the petitioner, the petitioner was induced into horse racing and betting by the respondent no.2 and the petitioner lost considerable amount in racecourse and in purchasing a horse. The learned trial court came to conclusion that giving advice to put bet on horse racing does not amount to cheating. I consider that the learned trial court rightly came to conclusion that no offence of cheating was made out in this case. If the Crl. MC No.2508/2010 Page 1 Of 2 petitioner had not been interested in betting and earning easy money through betting, the petitioner would not have sought advice of ac...
Tag this Judgment!Abhijit Roy Vs. State Nct of Delhi
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. The petitioner/accused has sought anticipatory bail in a case under Sections 419/420/469/120B of IPC.2. The learned senior counsel for the accused/petitioner submits that section 419 and 469 were bailable and no ingredients of section 420 were made out, therefore, no custodial interrogation of the petitioner/accused could be sought by the police and the accused was entitled for anticipatory bail.3. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that Mr. Pradeep Gupta, OSD to Finance Minister made a complaint to the police that it has come to his notice that signatures and official letterheads of Smt. Omita Paul, Adviser to Union Finance Minister had been forged and forged letters had been written to various Bail Appln. No.1332/2010 Page 1 Of 3 organizations by unknown person. On receipt of this compl...
Tag this Judgment!Greaves Cotton Ltd. Vs Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
1.The present intra-Court appeal has been preferred calling in question the legal substantiality and sustainability of the order dated 28th September, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 4809/2007.2. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The appellant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for LPA) No.860/2010 Page 1 of 9 issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 9th May, 2007 passed by the Labour Court whereby the Presiding Officer has allowed an application filed by the workman the respondent No.3 herein, for setting aside the ex parte award passed on 1st August, 2002. As is evincible from the order impugned, a dispute arose between the workman and the management which resulted in reference of the dispute to the Labour Court for deciding the question whether the service of the workman was legally and justifiably terminated by the managemen...
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Saraha Vs. State
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. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed an order 9th August 2010 whereby the application of petitioner for grant of parole was dismissed.2. The petitioner is undergoing sentence for ransom kidnapping. His appeal was dismissed by this Court on 14th December 2007. It seems that the petitioner was a hardened criminal as he was involved in another case of ransom kidnapping for which he is facing trial. Looking at the antecedents of the petitioner, I am afraid there is every possibility that the petitioner if released on parole, may indulge into another heinous crime. I find no reason to allow this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court on Its Own Motion Through Mr. Ajay Chaudhary . Vs. State .
Court: Delhi
1.The fundamental issue that has emerged for consideration in this writ petition that has been instituted on the basis of a letter sent to this Court is whether an accused is entitled to a copy of the First Information Report after it is lodged and if so, what steps are required to be taken to facilitate its availability as the liberty of an individual is inextricably linked with his right to be aware how he has been booked under law and on what allegations. Liberty and freedom are the strongest passion of men and many have WP(Crl.) No.468/2010 Page 1 of 35 sacrificed their lives for the cause of liberty. No one has ever conceived it as an arduous contrivance, a distant notion to be achieved by fortunate moments but as a basic human right. Liberty and life are in wedlock in a civilized society with the pledge not to tolerate the idea of separation. Jose' Marti has described liberty thus: Like bone to the human body, and the axle to the wheel, and the song to a bird, and air to the wing...
Tag this Judgment!All India Researchers Coordination Committee and ors. Vs. Union of Ind ...
Court: Delhi
MANMOHAN, J :1. Present writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the constitutional validity of the Regulations dated 11th July, 2009 framed by the University Grants Commission (in short, "UGC") namely, UGC (Minimum qualifications required for the appointment and career advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) (3rd Amendment), Regulation, 2009 ( in short, "Regulations 2009"). The relevant portion of the impugned Regulations, 2009 reads as under:-"NET/SLET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Lecturers in Universities/Colleges/Institutions.Provided, however, that candidates, who are or have been awarded Ph.D. Degree in compliance of the "University Grants Commission (minimum standards and procedure for award of Ph.D Degree), Regulation 2009, shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET for recruitment and appointment o...
Tag this Judgment!Greaves Cotton Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes DIPAK MISRA, CJThe present intra-Court appeal has been preferred calling in question the legal substantiality and sustainability of the order dated 28th September, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 4809/2007.2. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The appellant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for LPA) No.860/2010 Page 1 of 9 issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 9th May, 2007 passed by the Labor Court whereby the Presiding Officer has allowed an application filed by the workman the respondent No.3 herein, for setting aside the ex parte award passed on 1st August, 2002. As is evincible from the order impugned, a dispute arose between the workman and...
Tag this Judgment!Sahara India Pariwar, Vs. State and anr.
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. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner for cancellation of bail granted to respondent no.2 by learned ASJ vide order dated 24th April, 2010.2. Respondent no.2 was allegedly involved in a case of embezzlement and a case under Section 408, 120B IPC was registered against him. Respondent no.2 applied for anticipatory bail initially before this Court and an interim protection was granted to him on his commitment to pay the amount of Rs.8,65,000/- within a certain period. However, respondent no.2 could not pay this amount on account of his weak financial condition and was arrested by the police. After his arrest by the police on 1st April, 2010, he applied for regular bail. Vide order dated 24th April, 2010, learned ASJ allowed his regular bail observing that respondent no.2's was not in a position to pay the amount...
Tag this Judgment!