Delhi Court March 2010 Judgments

Sameer Wason and anr. Vs. Rajinder Kumar Lamba

Court: Delhi

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners have assailed an order dated 15th October, 2007 passed by learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal whereby on appeal the order of eviction passed by Additional Rent Controller was reversed.2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioners-landlord filed an eviction petition against the respondent-tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent under Section 14(i)(a) of Delhi Rent Control Act. This eviction petition was upheld, however, the tenant was given benefit of Section 14(2) of Delhi Rent Control Act and the eviction order was not passed. The landlord again filed an eviction petition on the ground of second default because of not making payment of rent by tenant consequently for three months despite a notice of demand dated 6th June, 2001. It is not disputed that in response to the notice of demand sent by landlord, the tenant sent a reply stating that he was including a draft of...

Bijender Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Discussing the testimony of the witnesses of the prosecution and in particular Anand Narayan Srivastava PW-7, the learned Trial Judge has concluded the impugned judgment and order dated 6th February, 2006 by recording a finding, in para 27 of the decision, as under:27. It is argued that in the present case also the offence was committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in heat of passion and that the accused had not taken any undue advantage nor acted in any cruel or unusual manner. Rather he himself accompanied the injured to the hospital. I disagree with the submission learned Defence Counsel. The testimony of PW7 shows that due to the intervention of other trainees deceased and the accused were separated and thereafter the accused hit the deceased with the knife. In such circumstances I am of the opinion that despite the intervention of his colleagues the accused did not stop and acted in an unusual manner and attack the deceased with the knife on ches...

Sarita Perwal and anr. Vs. Pankaj Prakash

Court: Delhi

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this petition under Section 10 and 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, the petitioner sought action against respondent for willful defiance of the order dated 20th October 2007 passed by Shri V.K. Yadav, learned ADJ.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that during pendency of petition for possession and mesne profits of the premises, the petitioner made an application under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC. This application was allowed and the learned ADJ directed respondent to deposit Rs. 4,36,068/- towards arrears of rent within a month from the date of passing of order and to continue to deposit by 10th of every month the damages @ Rs. 2,000/- per day, in terms of the agreement.3. It is not in dispute that after passing of this order, the suit filed by plaintiff was also decreed. It is also not in dispute that an RFA was preferred before this Court being RFA 492 of 2009. It appears that possession of the tenanted premises was in the me...

Naresh Vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Ajit Bharihoke, J.1. The above appeals are directed against the impugned judgment dated 16th July 1997 in Sessions Case No. 127/95 FIR No. 73/92 P.S. Zaffarpur Kalan in terms of which the appellants have been convicted of charges under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 364 IPC read with Section 34 IPC as also the consequent order on sentence dated 17th July 1997.2. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 10th September 1992, PW1 Umed Singh visited the P.S. Zaffarpur Kalan at around 12:50 p.m. and reported to Shri Rohtas Singh, SHO that on 05th September 1992 at around 3:30 p.m., he had gone to meet his cousin Rakesh (for short 'deceased) at Taxi Stand Bahadurgarh. In the meanwhile, the appellants Naresh Kumar, Kishore Kumar, Charanjit and Anil came there and asked the deceased that they wanted to hire a taxi for going to Gurgaon. The taxi rate was settled as Rs. 350/-. Thereafter, the appellants left for Gurgaon in Maruti Van No. DL-4C-4753 alongwith the d...

Mrs. Savita Bhanot Vs. Lt. Col. V.D. Bhanot

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2010)158PLR1

V.K. Jain, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 18.9.2009, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 11.5.2009.2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 23.8.1980 and the petitioner was driven out of the matrimonial home on 4.7.2005. The case of the petitioner is that it was on account of the conduct of the respondent that she thereafter could not live with him. On 29.11.2006, the petitioner filed a petition before the Magistrate under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking various reliefs. Vide order dated 8.12.2006, the learned Magistrate granted interim relief of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the petitioner. Vide subsequent order dated 17.2.2007, he passed protection/residence order and allowed the petitioner to live in her m...

Sonia Singh Vs. ManmohIn Kaur and ors.

Court: Delhi

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 18th November, 2009 whereby her application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to be impleaded as a party in a suit filed by the respondents was dismissed.2. This Court in CM(M) No. 119/2010 has already observed that the order passed by the learned ADJ was within its jurisdiction and did not suffer from infirmity.3. The respondent had let out premises to Frick India Limited. Mrs. Sonia Singh, wife of one of the Directors claimed that she was in possession of the premises and she was a necessary party. The learned ADJ observed that the agreement clearly reflected that the landlord had inducted Petitioner Company as a tenant. The agreement did not specify that it was for residence of Mrs. Sonia Singh and her husband. There was no privity of contract between the applicant and the landlord, neither the landlord had recognized applicant or her husband as tenant so she was not a necessary party and the application wa...

Kannu Through L.Rs. Vs. Daulat Ram Through L.Rs.

Court: Delhi

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By way of present petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 10th January 2008 passed by the learned ADJ allowing an appeal against an order dated 29th August 2006 of learned Civil Judge.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the respondent's predecessor Daulat Ram, who was allottee of Plot No. 138, had filed a suit for possession against the predecessor of the respondent. A decree of possession was passed in favour of Shri Daulat Ram on 16th December 1982 in respect of one Khokha measuring 8' x 6' existing upon a piece of land measuring 103 sq yards in Village Abadi, Old Roshanpura, Nazafgarh, New Delhi. Against this judgment, an appeal was filed by Shri Kanu, predecessor of present petitioners being RCA No. 87 of 1983. The first appellate court stayed the operation of decree of trial court during pendency of appeal. In the meantime, Mr. Kanu filed an LPA No. 69 of 1980 against an order passed in favour of Mr. Da...

Late Sh. Musaddi Khan Thru. L.Rs. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 22nd June, 2007 of the learned Additional District Judge whereby he upheld the order of learned Civil Judge holding that the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC made by the petitioner already stood decided by him and he was not required to re-decide the same and the interim injunction refused earlier was operative.2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner's father filed a suit for permanent injunction in the year 1984 against the respondents. In the suit, petitioner's father filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. This application was dismissed by learned Civil Judge by a speaking order passed on merits after hearing both the parties. It appears that father of the petitioner died during initial pendency of the suit and an application to bring LRs on record was not moved in time. However, later on an application to bring LRs was ...

Subhash Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

A.K. Pathak, J.1. Vide judgment dated 21st January, 2003 learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted respondent No. 2 of the charges under Sections 365/377/302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC); acquitted respondent Nos. 2 and 3 of the charges under Sections 201/34 IPC.2. Respondent No. 1 (State) did not prefer any appeal against the acquittal of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. However, father of the deceased (complainant) preferred an appeal in this Court challenging the acquittal of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.3. Vide order dated 8th August, 2003 a Division Bench of this Court held that appeal against the acquittal filed by a private party was not maintainable. Accordingly, appeal was ordered to be treated as revision petition. Consequently, present petition was registered as criminal revision.4. Brief facts of the case are that Lalit, aged about 12 years, was found missing from his house on 11th March, 2001 at about 7:00 PM. Complainant lodged a missing report with the police station Samaipur Bad...

Brij Bhushan Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 168(2010)DLT334

Mool Chand Garg, J.1. This common order shall dispose of the aforesaid two petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India registered as Crl.M.C. No. 2344/2004 and Crl.M.C. No. 354/2005 respectively, both arising out of the same incident which occurred around the midnight of 31.8.2000 /01.09.2000, seeking quashing of:(i) FIR bearing No. 628/2000 under Section 302/307 IPC registered at P.S. Shalimar Bagh against Shri Brij Bhushan the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 2344/2004 (hereinafter referred to as the Custom Officer) and(ii) FIR bearing No. 295/2000 under Sections 186/353/332/364/365/506/34 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act registered at P.S. Karol Bagh New Delhi against Shri Vikas Thukral and Ors. (hereinafter referred to as Thukrals) petitioners in Crl.M.C. No. 354/2005 at the instance of the Custom Officer as well as the proceedings arising therefrom respectively.2. Brief facts, giving rise to filing of FIR No. 628/2000 registered a...