Delhi Court March 2010 Judgments

Ruchita Dhawan Vs. the Chairman/Vice Chancellor and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 169(2010)DLT52

G.S. Sistani, J.1. In the year 2008 petitioner sought admission in B.Com (Hons.) in the Mata Sundari College. Petitioner appeared in the 1st year annual examination. During the course of examination held on 20.4.2009 for the paper 'Micro Economics Theory and Applications-I', the Invigilator found some material close to the petitioner's foot. The invigilator thereafter made a report that last paragraph of the students' answer-sheet matches with the paper. The petitioner was asked to give her explanation. Petitioner denied the allegation and stated that she had nothing to do with the material found near her. The petitioner was thereafter issued a show cause notice dated 27.7.2009 for use of unfair means, to which a reply has been filed. The university was not satisfied with the explanation rendered by the petitioner. Consequent thereto after hearing the petitioner an order dated 15.09.2009 was passed, by virtue of which entire examination of the petitioner was cancelled and she was debar...

Samunder Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

V.K. Jain, J.1. By this common judgment, I shall dispose of all the five appeals referred to above, which are directed against a common judgment dated 30.3.2005 and order on sentence dated 1.4.2005, whereby the appellants were convicted under Sections 323/452/506/34 of IPC and were given benefit of probation.2. On 16th September, 2003, an information was received in Police Control room that a quarrel had taken place in Village Poot, and two persons had sustained bullet injuries. The information was recorded vide DD No. 25-A, a copy of which was given to SI Ved Pal Singh of PS Bawana. He, thereupon, went to Bhram Shakti Hospital, where the complainant Rajpal as well as Rajnikant, S/o Satveer, were found admitted. In his statement to IO, Rajpal alleged that on that day at about 9.00 p.m., when he was present in his house, his neighbour Kishan Chand, along with his sons Samunder, Vijay, Rajesh and Suresh, banged at his door and started abusing and asking him as to why he was objecting to ...

Rajeshwar Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Gita Mittal, J.1. This writ petition raises a short question for consideration. The petitioner joined Central Industrial Security Force (CISF for brevity) on 01st August, 2007. A departmental enquiry was initiated on issuance of a charge sheet dated 29th October, 2007 under Rule 36 of the CIFS Rules. An enquiry report dated 27th July, 2009 was submitted concluding that neither of the two charges has been proved. The disciplinary authority thereafter passed the order dated 15/17th September, 2009 exonerating the petitioner.2. Thereafter, the Inspector General of the CISF exercised suo moto powers of revision in terms of Rule 54 of the CISF and issued the notice dated 12th March, 2010. The petitioner has placed copy of the enquiry report dated 27th July, 2009, the order of the disciplinary authority dated 15/17th September, 2009 as well as the notice dated 12th March, 2010 before us. A fundamental challenge has been raised to the effect that while issuing the notice to show cause, the In...

Fateh Singh and ors. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The above captioned appeal has been filed by appellants Fateh Singh, Suraj Bhan, Karan Singh, Jai Bharat, Prem Singh, Raj Tilak and Santosh @ Pappy challenging the judgment and order dated 19.09.2001 passed by the learned Trial Judge convicting them for the offences punishable under Section 148 IPC, as also Sections 302/149 IPC. For the offence of murder, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine in sum of Rs. 3,000/- each; in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. For the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. The broad contours of the case set up by the prosecution are that there is a Valmiki temple situated near Anant Ram Dairy in R.K. Puram, Delhi. The temple belongs to appellant Fateh Singh who is a Valmiki. Appellant Fateh Singh wished to...

Nutech Security Printers Vs. Ashok Kumar and ors.

Court: Delhi

J.R. Midha, J.CM(M) No. 400/20101. Issue notice to respondent No. 3.2. Mr. S.L. Gupta, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 3.3. The accident dated 30th July, 2005 resulted in injuries to Ashok Kumar who filed the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal.3. The claim petition was filed against respondent No. 2 (driver of the offending vehicle), the appellant (registered owner of the offending vehicle) and respondent No. 3 (insurer of the offending vehicle).4. The right of the petitioner to file written statement was closed by the Claims Tribunal by the order dated 9th October, 2006. The petitioner filed an application for review of the order and permission to file the written statement which has been dismissed by the Claims Tribunal. The petitioner also filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead Chand Singh to whom the petitioner had leased out the offending vehicle but the Claims Tribunal also dismissed that application.5. The ...

J.S. Panesar Vs. Santokh Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 169(2010)DLT56,(2010)158PLR54

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed concurrent judgment of two Courts below dismissing suit filed by the petitioner for possession of the premises in question. As this Court is not a Court of second appeal and the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 is limited, the only issue pressed before this Court is that the two Courts below wrongly came to conclusion that the notice served by the petitioner on the respondent/tenant stood waived while there was no plea of waiver taken by the respondent.2. Brief facts relevant for deciding this petition are that the petitioner/landlord served notice dated 26.10.1998 on Smt. Bhupinder Kaur terminating her tenancy w.e.f. 30.11.1998 of the tenanted premises. At the time when notice was served the rent of the premises was Rs. 25/- p.m., since the tenancy was protected under Delhi Rent Control Act, he could not have filed a suit for eviction on the ground...

Nisha Sharma and ors. Vs. Deo Nath Mishra and ors.

Court: Delhi

J.R. Midha, J.1. The appellants have challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs. 12,97,000/-has been awarded to the appellants. The appellants seek enhancement of the award amount.2. The accident dated 11th February, 2005 resulted in the death of Shyam Rattan. The deceased was survived by his widow, three sons and mother who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal.3. The deceased was aged 39 years and 7 months at the time of the accident and was working as a Constable in Delhi Police drawing a salary of Rs. 10,904/- per month. The learned Tribunal deducted Rs. 4,360/- towards GPF, CGEGIS, DPWS and Education Fund, added 50% towards future prospects, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and applied the multiplier of 16 to compute the loss of dependency at Rs. 12,56,544/-. Rs. 15,000/- has been awarded towards loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses. The tota...

Dalvinder Kaur @ Devinder Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

J.R. Midha, J.1. The appellants have challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs. 12,82,200/- has been awarded to them. The appellants seek enhancement of the award amount.2. The accident dated 7th June, 1999 resulted in the death of S. Inderjeet Singh. The deceased was survived by his widow, two minor sons and mother who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal.3. The deceased was aged 38 years at the time of the accident and was working as a building contractor. The deceased was an Income-Tax assessee and as per the last Income-Tax Return, the income of the deceased was Rs. 1,54,800/-. However, the Claims Tribunal disregarded the said Income-Tax return on the ground that it was filed after the death of the deceased. The deceased expired on 7th June, 1999 whereas the Income-Tax Return, Ex.PW-2/7 was filed on 30th September, 1999. The Claims Tribunal took the income of the deceased relating to the previous year, according to which the income of t...

Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. State N.C.T. of Delhi

Court: Delhi

V.K. Jain, J.1. By this common judgment, I shall dispose of all the four appeals referred to above, which are directed against a common judgment and order on sentence dated 28.4.2005, whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 392 of IPC read with Section 34 thereof and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/- each or to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one months each, in default.2. On 21st December, 2000, an information was received at Police Control Room that three persons traveling in Maruti Car No. DL 2C 4116, had committed robbery of Rs. 1,30,000/-. On receipt of this information, the Investigation Officer of this case SI R.S. Naruka went to the spot, where the complainant Manoj Kumar was present along with his Scooter No. DL 3SL 6998. The complainant alleged that on that day he was carrying Rs. 1,30,000/- with him in his scooter. When he reached NH-8 at about 3.15 p.m., one Maruti Car of blue colour hit the lef...

Naresh Kumar Vs. Daya Nand

Court: Delhi

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The applicant has approached this Court against an order whereby an application of the applicant made under Section 33 of Indian Stamp Act for impounding of a General Power of Attorney (GPA) was dismissed by the Trial Court.2. The GPA placed on the record of the Trial Court by respondent is a registered GPA executed on Rs. 100/- stamp paper. The contention of the petitioner before the Trial Court was that since along with GPA, an Agreement to Sell, a Will and a Receipt were also executed, the GPA was for a consideration and therefore was liable to bear stamp duty @ 8% of consideration. Since it was executed only on Rs. 100/- stamp paper, it was liable to be impounded.3. Under Section 33 of Indian Stamp Act, a document can be impounded by a Court if it does not bear the stamp duty which it legally should. In order to show what should be the value of stamp duty, the document is to be read in its entirety and if the GPA shows that it was executed for some consid...