Delhi Court December 2010 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.
Lala Sri Kishan Das Gupta (Deceased) Vs. Ved Prakash Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 1.10.2002 which has endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 9.7.1999 whereby the suit of the plaintiff i.e. of Shri Krishan Das Gupta seeking recovery of arrears of rent from Ved Prakash Gupta had been dismissed.2. Plaintiff Shri Krishan Das Gupta had filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent against defendant no.1 Ved Prakash Gupta. His contention was that Ved Prakash Gupta is the tenant of the plaintiff in respect of shop bearing no.3767, Chawri Bazar, Delhi at a monthly revised rent of Rs.41/- per month. The defendant is in arrears of rent up to 30.12.1992; he is liable to repay this amount along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum; suit for recovery of Rs.2603.87p. was filed.3. Contention of defendant was that he is not the sole legal heir of his deceased father Baldeo Pershad who was the erstwhile tenant. After the death of Baldeo Pershad, Ved Prakash Gupta along with other legal heirs of their deceased fath...
Uoi Vs. Pratap Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
This appeal was filed by Union of India against the judgment and decree dated 22nd February, 2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Land Acquisition case no. 76/1991 whereby the compensation in respect of the land of the respondents no. 1 to 4 in village Dallupura acquired by the Government pursuant to the notifications dated 17th November, 1980 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and 29th September, 1981 under Section 6 of the said Act vide award no. 79/1982-83 of the Land Acquisition Collector was enhanced from ` 12,500 per bigha awarded by the Land Acquisition RFA 927/2003 Page 1 of 4 Collector to ` 3,45,000 per bigha.2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Reference Court while fixing the market value of the acquired land of the respondents nos. 1 to 4 at ` 3,45,000 per bigha had relied upon two decisions of this Court in "Anil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India", 86 (2001) Delhi Law Times 825 and the other one is unreported one in RFA No. 338/...
Amar Lal Arora Vs. Vice Chancellor Delhi University and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
1. A FIR was lodged against the petitioner under Section 498A and 406 IPC. Consequent thereto, the petitioner was convicted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide his order dated 14th August, 2002. Aggrieved by the order passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, the petitioner herein, filed an appeal against the judgment and conviction order before Additional Sessions Judge. The Additional Sessions Judge released the petitioner on probation for a period of one year. It was directed that a sum of `3,00,000/- and a fine of `5,000/- imposed by the trial Court was to be treated as cost of proceedings and a fine of `25,000/- was treated as compensation under Section 5(1)(a) of the Probation of Offenders Act. The petitioner failed a criminal revision before the High Court. The High Court disposed of the CONT CAS(C)No.26/2010 Page 1 of 5 revision petition on 13th July, 2009 and the operative portion of the order reads as under :-"8. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not wish to pr...
Ram Singh Vs. General Manager, Northern Railways and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
1. On 18.10.2010 we had issued notice to show-cause by penning as under:-"1. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws our attention to the rejoinder filed to the counter reply filed by the respondents and points out that he categorically stated that Annexures R-1 and R-2 referred to in the counter reply, being letters dated 22.4.1992 and 21.5.1992 were not filed nor copy given to him.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the inference drawn by the Tribunal and reference to the two documents is a wrong finding inasmuch as the Tribunal could draw no inference upon documents which was not even placed before the Tribunal.3. Issue notice to the respondents returnable for 25.11.2010.4. Through a Special Messenger record of OA No.2377/2005 be requisitioned from the Tribunal."2. Suffice would it be to state that the record of the Tribunal has been received by us and has been perused.3. Impugned order is dated 1.5.2007. The grievance of the petitioner is limited to the denial of back...
Union of India Vs. M/S. Microwave Communication Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
G.P. MITTAL, J.1. These appeals raise an important question of law. Whether an application for setting aside of an Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short A&C; Act) can be filed on the day when the Court reopens, by virtue of Section 4 of the Limitation Act, if the period of three months or for that matter additional period of 30 days on proof of sufficient cause expires on a day when the Court is closed?2. We would like to extract the provisions of Section 34 (3) of the A&C; Act hereunder for ready reference:-34. Application for setting aside arbitral award -(1) xxxxxxxxx(2) xxxxxxxxx(3). An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under Section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal: Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was ...
M/S. Sachdeva Enterprises and ors. Vs. State (Through Department of Pf ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
1. Through these petitions, the petitioners M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd., M/s. Rama Harzai and M/s. Sachdeva Enterprises have sought quashing of respective complaints filed against them, being complaint cases No. 59/PF/DA/08, CC No. 1854/2009, CC No. 1944/2009 & CC No. 1961/2009, all under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as PFA Act) pending in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi and also impugned orders respectively dated 01.05.2008, 02.05.2009, 16.09.2009 & 14.10.2009, issuing processes against the petitioners as also the proceedings emanating from the complaints.2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to filing of these petitions are that on 10th May, 2005, 18th April, 2006, 24th May, 2006 and 07th November, 2006, the concerned Food Inspectors purchased samples of Kissan Tomato Ketchup for analysis from the premises of M/s. Nut and Cookies, Shop No. G 24/1, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi; M/s. Shangrila Chinese Food (...
Satpal Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
1. The appellant has filed W.P (C) No. 2161 of 2009 before the Delhi High Court against the decision of the Summary Court Martial held on 10.1.1996, wherein he was sentenced to be dismissed from service for two offences under Army Act Sections 39(b) and 54(b). On formation of this Tribunal, the writ petition was transferred for disposal and treating it as an appeal under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, it is being disposed of by this judgment. 2. The crux of the matter is that the appellant was granted annual leave from 5.7.1995 to 4.9.1995. During the period of leave, the appellant had gone to his village in Delhi. His village was one of the worst affected during the floods that hit parts of Delhi in September 1995 and consequently, because his aged parents had to be assisted, he overstayed his leave after sending a letter to his unit. He reported to 213 Transit Camp at Jammu (Jammu and Kashmir) 15 days late. Because of the procedural formalities at this Transit Cam...
Jai Prakash Rana Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
1. The petitioner, by filing this Writ Petition in Delhi High Court, challenged the General Court Martial proceedings dated 29th April, 2003, whereby the petitioner was held guilty of offences under Sections 52(a) and 63 of the Army Act. On formation of this Armed Forces Tribunal, this case has been transferred to this Tribunal. Therefore, by virtue of Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the writ petition is converted into an appeal. 2. The facts in brief, as set out by the petitioner (hereinafter the appellant), are: The appellant served the Army with devotion and sincerity for about 29 years. On 10.8.2003, at about 4.30 AM, an FIR was lodged before the Sadar Police alleging theft of Rs.2,35,202/- from Regimental Treasury Chest (RTC), wherein the said amount was kept in a plastic sealed bag. The police submitted final report stating that they could not find any clue. Subsequently, a GCM was convened for the trial of the petitioner in respect of the alleged offences. The...
Munesh Chand Sharma (Died) Represented by His Legal Representative, Sm ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
1. Vide this writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court, the appellant challenges the Summary Court Martial (SCM) order of 11.1.1999, wherein he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and five days and to be dismissed from service. The appellant sought to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. In interim, the appellant expired on 7.12.2005 and his legal heirs have already been impleaded in view of the proviso to Section 394(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 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. The appellant contends that he was tried for two offences, one each under Army Act Sections 39(b) and 48. He supposedly pleaded guilty under duress and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month and five days and to be dismissed from service. The appellant contends that the order of th...
Jagvir Singh Vs. Chief of the Army Staff
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
1. This writ petition was brought before the Delhi High Court for quashing the Summary Court Martial (SCM) proceedings being void ab initio. Simultaneously, reinstatement in service with backwages after setting aside the conviction and sentence for the offence under Army Act Section 63 was also sought. On formation of this Tribunal, the writ petition was transferred for disposal and it being converted into an appeal under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, is disposed of by this judgment. 2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to this appeal are: The appellant was posted to 512 ASC Battalion on 9.12.1991. He was given the duties of Driver of a 4 ton lorry of B Company. On 31.12.1993, he was assigned to carry engine assembles of 257 EME Workshop along with another vehicle from Nasirabad to Jodhpur. Enroute, he consumed liquor, though he was dissuaded by his co-driver. On his way, he picked up a stranded army person, Hav. R.S Rajpur of 1566 Pioneer Company attached with 1804...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »