Delhi Court April 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 13 of about 223 results (0.023 seconds)Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Kishan and ors.
Court: Delhi
J.R. Midha, J.1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs. 7,35,000/- has been awarded to claimants/respondents No. 1 and 2.2. The accident dated 1st February, 2006 resulted in the death of Sunil Kumar. The deceased was survived by his parents who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal.3. The deceased was aged 18 years at the time of the accident and was self employed earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal took the income of the deceased to be Rs. 7,438/- per month, deducted 1/2 towards his personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 15 to compute the loss of dependency at Rs. 6,69,420/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. The learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 7,35,000/- to claimants/respondents No. 1 and 2.4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased was self employed and, the...
Tag this Judgment!MaharajdIn Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. At the outset it may be noted that there is considerable confusion whether the name of the appellant is Maharajdin or Mehrajudin. Somewhere he is referred to as Maharajdin and somewhere as Mehrajudin. Since in the memo of parties drawn up by the learned Trial Judge the appellant has been referred to as Maharajdin, we shall be referring to the appellant by said name.2. In a well penned judgment dated 28.1.2010 the appellant has been convicted for the offence of having murdered Vijay Kant Shukla at about 9:15 PM at Jhuggi No. C- 43/296 Ambedkar Basti. The date being 6.4.2006. The appellant has also been convicted for the offence of criminally intimidating Parmatma PW-1. Vide order on sentence dated 29.1.2010, for the offence of murder the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. For the offence of criminally intimidating Parmatma, sentence imposed is to undergo imprisonment for two years.3. In returning the verdict of guilt, the learned Trial...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Kumar Vs. the State (Govt. of Nct)
Court: Delhi
Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The present appeal by Mr. Manoj Kumar is directed against judgment dated 3rd January, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge convicting him for offences under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Code, for short). By order dated 7th January, 2009, the appellant has been sentenced under Section 376 to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 7 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- with the stipulation that in case of default in payment of fine, the appellant will undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. For offence under Section 506 of the Code, the appellant has been sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment.2. The allegation against the appellant was that he was a neighbour of the prosecutrix and he had committed rape at about 11 p.m. on 28th April, 2005, while she was sleeping along with her two younger sisters on the roof of their house. After committing rape, the appellant ran away and absconded and came back to his ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Shri Palley Ram
Court: Delhi
Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioners, Union of India, through General Manager Northern Railways and Ors have impugned the order dated 17th April, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in O.A. No. 1107/2008 in M.A. No. 887/2008 titled as Sh. Palley Ram v. Union of India and Ors. directing the petitioners to protect the last drawn pay of the respondent at the post of Hammer Man (Group C) even though he had been reverted to the post of Safaiwala (Group D) and also directed the petitioners to pay arrears of pay after refixing his pay as per rules.2. The Tribunal while allowing the petition relied on Badri Prasad v. Union of India and Ors. : (2005) 11 SCC 304 deprecating the practice adopted by Railways of taking work from employees of Group D post on a higher Group C post for unduly long period and holding that in such circumstances, Group D employees working on higher Group C post acquire legitimate hopes and claims for higher post. The Supreme Court had further ...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Kumar @ Ajju Son of Ram Kishan Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Suresh Kait, J.1. Instant appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 03.04.2008 convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. For the former offence, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and for the latter to undergo RI for a period of 7 years. The third accused namely Manoj was not committed to trial since he was declared a Proclaimed Offender.2. On 15.10.2000 Omwati PW-10 went to the police station where HC Bhim Singh recorded her statement Ex.PW-6/A vide DD No. 27 wherein it was recorded that her son Rajender @Marshall aged 24 years wearing black coloured pant and grey coloured check shirt had not returned since he left his house at 7:00 PM on 13.10.2000. No suspicion was cast on anybody. On 17.10.2000 Omwati went to the police station where her statement Ex.PW-2/A was recorded in which she informed that on 13.10.2000 her son Rajender @ Marshall ...
Tag this Judgment!Jindal Exports Ltd. Vs. Fuerst Day Lawson
Court: Delhi
Madan B. Lokur, A.C.J.1. The question for our consideration is rather narrow: Is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent (as applicable to the Delhi High Court) maintainable against an order enforcing a foreign award (within the meaning of Sections 44 and 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Article II of the New York Convention)? The question is required to be answered in the context of Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and, in our opinion, the answer is in the negative. For this conclusion, we rely upon a four-Judge decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mohindra Supply Co. : AIR 1962 SC 256 and a Constitution Bench decision in P.S. Sathappan v. Andhra Bank Ltd. : (2004) 11 SCC 672.2. The broad facts of the case are that two 'foreign awards' were rendered in favour of the Respondent on 30 August, 1996 and 16th October, 1996. The Respondent moved execution petitions under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,...
Tag this Judgment!Modipon Ltd. Vs. Aruna Kohli and anr.
Court: Delhi
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC wherein the appellant raised 24 questions of law (A to X) terming them as substantial questions of law. The first question reads as under:Whether the judgment of the trial court is a nullity as it has failed to deal, discuss, answer and decide the most important issue, which goes to the root of the matter, in view of the requirement of Order 20 Rules 4&5 and Order 14 Rule 2 CPC which mandate the trial Court to return findings on all the issues.and there are 23 other similar questions of law. The questions raised show that the appeal was filed in casual manner raising any question and terming it as a substantial question of law.2. During arguments the learned Sr. Counsel for appellant submitted following 12 questions of law for consideration of court and stated that these were the substantial questions of law being raised:(1) Whether two separate premises, having two distinct municipal numbers, one bei...
Tag this Judgment!Anant Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shri Harwinder Singh Saini and anr.
Court: Delhi
V.K. Shali, J.IA Nos. 15804/2009 & 3558/20101. This order shall dispose of the application bearing IA No. 15804/2009 under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC. Along with this IA, another application bearing IA No. 3558/2010 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 65 days' delay in filing the application seeking setting aside the ex parte decree.2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the application are that the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance against the defendants who are husband and wife in respect of the agreement dated 6th March, 2003 and permanent injunction in respect of property No. B-5/96, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi measuring 199 sq. yds. The total sale consideration of the agreement was Rs. 62.00 lakhs, out of which a sum of Rs. 60.00 lakhs was paid on 5th March, 2003. It is alleged that defendants did not perfect the title of the plaintiff and accept the balance amount of Rs. 2.00 lakhs and consequently the p...
Tag this Judgment!Bhoolay Ram Sharma and ors. Vs. Government of National Capital Territo ...
Court: Delhi
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The eight petitioners are working as Malaria beldars in the Anti Malaria Department of the MCD in Shahdara Zone. Their services were regularized pursuant to the orders in the earlier writ petition filed by them. It is the case of the petitioners that the next post in the channel of promotion in the case of the petitioners is of Surveillance Workers/Basic Health Workers/Assistant Malaria Inspectors and which is a non selection post and the mode of recruitment, as per Recruitment Regulation w.e.f. 1974 was, 50% by direct appointment and 50% was by promotion from categories of Anti Malaria/DDT Beldars & Jamadars with one year experience in the case of matriculates and ten years experience in the case of middle pass. However, the MCD vide Notification dated 12th August, 1985 changed the percentage of recruitment to the post of Surveillance Workers/Basic Health Workers/Assistant Malaria Inspector from 50:50 as aforesaid earlier, to 95% for direct recruits and 5% for...
Tag this Judgment!Anshumalee Sood Vs. Sudarshana Kumari Blagan and anr.
Court: Delhi
ORDERS. Muralidhar, J.1. The Petitioner is the son and sole legal representative ('LR') of late Smt. Devi Kumari Sood, Defendant No. 3 in Suit No. 791 of 2007 (renumbered), which is a partition suit filed by her sister Smt. Sudarshana Kumari Blagan the Respondent No. 1 Plaintiff way back in 1984. The Petitioner challenges an order dated 15th July 2009 passed by the Commercial Civil Judge ('CCJ'), Delhi whereby an application filed by the Plaintiff under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC seeking to implead the Petitioner as LR was allowed and the Petitioner's application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking to implead himself as a party Defendant in his own right was dismissed.2. Respondent No. 1 filed the aforementioned suit for partition of the immovable property at I-13, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi ('suit property') which belonged to late Shri Mela Ram Sood, the husband of Defendant No. 1 Smt. Tulsan Devi, and the father of the Plaintiff, and Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 Shri Din Dayal Sood and Smt. De...
Tag this Judgment!