Delhi Court April 2010 Judgments

Mohd. Jahangir @ Viya @ Chottu Vs. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Ajit Bharihoke, J.1. The appellant, Mohd. Jahangir, has been convicted and sentenced in Sessions Case No. 72/2006 arising out of FIR No. 296/2004 registered at P.S. Kirti Nagar for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 and 392/34 IPC and for offence Under Section 302/34 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs 2,000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. For offence under Section 392/34 IPC he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also pay a fine of Rs 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. The appellant was also entitled to benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.6.2004 at about 2.45 p.m. accused persons namely Gajanand, Anil, Mohd Jahangir committed robbery of wrist watch, ration card and Rs 50/- from Ram Chander. Ram Chander informed his...

Musharrat Ali Vs. Rais Azam

Court: Delhi

Hima Kohli, J.1. The present petition is directed against an order dated 12.05.2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi, dismissing an application preferred by the petitioner (defendant in the court below) under Section 5 of Limitation Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking condonation of delay in filing his written statement in a suit instituted by the respondent (plaintiff in the court below) for recovery of possession, damages for use and occupation of suit premises, i.e., F-49, 4th Floor, Nafis Road, Batla House, Joga Bai Extn., Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi, in his favour and pass a decree for recovery of arrears.2. The sequence of events relevant for deciding the present case at hand are that the summon of the suit was served on the petitioner/defendant on 09.02.2009 and he was directed to appear in Court on 19.02.2009. Counsel for the petitioner appeared in Court on 19.02.2009 and filed his power of attorney. The case was adjourned to 30.04.2009 for filin...

Mrs. Veena Nirmal Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

V.K. Shali, J.1. This is a petition filed by Smt. Veena Nirmal Singh wife of Mr. Nirmal Singh, R/o R-11, Nehru Enclave, Kalkaji, New Delhi-19 for grant of probate of a Will dated 18.4.2009 made by the widowed sister Neelam Sahni who died on 07.4.2009. It is stated in the petition that the deceased/testator Smt. Neelam Sahni was widow and she did not have any issue from the wedlock. It is alleged that the deceased/testator had inherited from her father Sh. Rajinder Singh, properties, the details of which are given in Schedule which comprised of property i.e. basement, ground floor and second floor situated at R-11, Nehru Enclave, Kalkaji, New Delhi-19, bank account No. 10561 in Punjab and Sind Bank, Hemkunt Branch, New Delhi, a car Hundai Santro, bearing registration No. DL 3 CAQ 7311, jewellery items (gold chain, ring, ear-rings, gajra), furniture and fixtures. The total valuation of the entire property left behind by the deceased is given as Rs. 82,75,711.46 p.2. It is alleged that th...

Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2010(2)167

S. Muralidhar, J.1. The Petitioner Super Cassettes Industries Limited (hereafter 'Super Cassettes') challenges the order dated 1st October 2004 passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), whereby Transferred Appeal No. TA/117/2003/TM/DEL filed by Respondent No. 3, Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd., (hereafter 'TELCO') was allowed in part and the order dated 7th April 1995, passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks (DR), New Delhi was modified by directing Super Cassettes to remove the circle around the letter 'T' and be granted registration in respect of the mark 'T-SERIES' with letter 'T' within a circle and below that the word 'SERIES' in a rectangle.2. Super Cassettes states that it is a company having its registered office at New Delhi and is the flagship of a diversified group engaged in the business of consumer electronics, CDs, audio/video magnetic tapes & cassettes and film production. It is stated that it markets its products under the trademark T-...

Ram Kumar Singh and anr. Vs. Delhi Jal Board and ors.

Court: Delhi

Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioners and nine other applicants had filed TA No. 788/2009 titled Sh. Ram Kumar Singh and Ors. v. Delhi Jal Board and Ors., praying, inter alia, for a direction to respondent No. 1 to amend the seniority list dated 26th March, 1993 and 27th July, 1999 and to give proper placements to them and to review the DPC of September, 1997 for regular promotion of Assistant Engineer (C) and to promote the petitioners Nos. 1 & 2 and nine other applicants from September, 1997 with proper placement in seniority list which petition has been dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal bench by order dated 26th October, 2009, which is impugned only by the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 in the present writ petition.2. The petitioners and other applicants challenged seniority list of Junior Engineer (Civil) appointed during the period 1972-1991 and later on up to the year 1999 contending that the seniority had to be fixed from the respective dates of appointment and senio...

Sh. O.P. Kaushik Vs. the Management of Indian Red Cross Society and or ...

Court: Delhi

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition impugns the order dated 18th November, 1995 and the award dated 13th August, 1996 of the Labour Court in the following industrial dispute referred at the instance of the petitioner:Whether the dismissal from services of Sh. O.P. Kaushik is illegal and/or unjustified, and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?2. The Labour Court vide order dated 18th November, 1995 decided first the issue:Whether the enquiry held by the management is not fair and proper?3. The petitioner challenged the enquiry on following counts:(i) The appointment of the Enquiry Officer was illegal in view of the explanation already submitted by the petitioner in response to the memorandum issued to him.(ii) That he was not supplied with copies of the documents demanded by him.(iii) That the witnesses were examined at his back and he was not given the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses.4. The Labour C...

Dr. A.K. Gupta Versus Union of India and Others

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

1. The present petition has been transferred from Honble Delhi High Court to this Tribunal on its formation. 2. Petitioner by the present writ petition has prayed to quash the orders dated 18.10.2000 and 11.09.2000 by which various benefits of rank pay has been snatched away from him. It is also prayed that respondents may be directed to pay him back the rank pay of being Squadron Leader alongwith interest. It is also prayed that respondents may be directed to pay him the terminal benefits in terms of Army Instructions no.75/78 dated 04.11.1978. 3. The petitioner served with respondents as a Short Service Commissioned Officer with effect from 24.11.1995 to 24.11.2000 i.e. for the period of 5 years on deputation from the State of Himachal Pradesh. He is a doctor by profession and he applied for Short Service Commission in Army through his parent department and he joined the Medical services in Army Medical Corp on deputation. He was given the rank of Flight Lieutenant and thereafter, ...

In the Matter Of: Hav /X-ray Parhlad Singh Versus the Chief of Army St ...

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

1. The applicant filed a writ petition (civil) No. 14174 of 2006 in the Honble Delhi High Court against his suppression to the rank of Naib Subedar (Nb Sub) vide order dated 8.3.2004 (Annexure P-1) and for quashing the order dated 9.5.2006 (Annexure P-7) rejecting his statutory complaint. He also made prayer to direct the respondents to promote him to the rank of Naib Subedar. The same was transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal on 25.9.2009. 2. The applicant, born on 10.6.1961, was enrolled in the Army on 18.2.1983. He has filed this petition against his suppression to the rank of Naib Subedar (Nb Sub). The applicant contends that during the period 1.10.1998 to 31.9.1999 he served with 403 Fd Amb and earned one regimental annual confidential report (ACR). Subsequently he was posted to Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Applied Sciences (INMAS), Delhi from October 1999 to November 2003 during which period he earned four ACRs which have been considered non regimental ACRs by the respon...

Sushil Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.

Court: Delhi

Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioner, the constable of Delhi Police has challenged the order dated 16th December, 1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in O.A No. 2270/1992 dismissing his original application assailing the order of termination of his services by order dated 21st April, 1988.2. The service of the petitioner was terminated in exercise of power under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. The petitioner has assailed the order primarily on the ground that the conditions of his service were governed by Delhi Police Act and Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules and the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 would not apply and he could not be terminated under those rules. The petitioner also assailed the notification issued by the administrator of Delhi Administration by which the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 had been made applicable to all the subordinates, civilian, empl...

S. Manjit Singh Vs. Gian Chand and anr.

Court: Delhi

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. Vide order dated 7th September, 2009, this Court had held respondent No. 1 guilty of civil contempt and punished him by simple imprisonment for term of three months apart from a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. However, respondent No. 2 despite several opportunities had not filed reply to the contempt proceedings. This Court vide aforesaid order had held that he was hand in glove with respondent No. 1 (his brother) and was equally guilty of contempt. Respondent No. 2 was asked to appear in person and he appeared in person on 7th September, 2009, and accepted notice of initiation of contempt proceedings. He was given time to file reply to the show cause notice as to why he should not be punished for colluding with his brother/respondent No. 1 for deliberate and willful non-compliance of the undertaking given by his brother/respondent No. 1 to the court on 26th September, 2008 in R.F.A. No. 809 of 2006.2. Respondent No. 2 has filed reply to the show cause notice and it onl...