Delhi Court April 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 16 of about 223 results (0.021 seconds)Govt. of Nct of Delhi Vs. Ct. Gyanender Singh
Court: Delhi
Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioner, Govt. of NCT through Commissioner of Police has challenged the order dated 11th May, 2009 of Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA 2264/2008 titled Constable Gyanender Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi allowing the original application of the respondent and setting aside the order dated 17th August, 2007 of the Disciplinary Authority imposing a major penalty of forfeiture of one year approved service and also setting aside the order dated 16th July, 2008 rejecting the appeal of the respondent.2. The respondent was proceeded in departmental inquiry on the allegation that on 7th/8th July, 2006, while posted in Karol Bagh Traffic Circle and detailed for night duty at Faiz Road-DBG Road Crossing. At that place Head Constable had allegedly, taken bribe from the truck driver in the guise of entry fee and at that time since, the respondent was also present, therefore, it was alleged that he had also connived with others, though the charge of conn...
Tag this Judgment!Ranjit Singh Vs. Parkash Devi
Court: Delhi
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The petitioner was tenant in respect of premises No. F-14/28, Second Floor, Model Town-II, Delhi-110009. A suit for eviction was filed by the respondent/landlady on the ground of non-payment of rent. While the landlady alleged that rate of rent was Rs. 950/-per month, the petitioner alleged that rate of rent was Rs. 300/- per month. Both the sides led evidence on the issue of rate of rent. After considering the evidence, Additional Rent Controller vide judgment dated 6th November, 2001 came to conclusion that the rate of rent was Rs. 950/- per month. An order under Section 15(1) of Delhi Rent Control Act was passed by Additional Rent Controller for deposit of arrears of rent at this rate and since the arrears of rent were deposited, benefit under Section 14(2) of Delhi Rent Control Act was given to the tenant.2. The petitioner, however, preferred an appeal before the Additional Rent Control Tribunal against the order of Additional Rent Controller dated 6th No...
Tag this Judgment!Parimal Kumar Dutta Vs. Apeejay School and ors.
Court: Delhi
Manmohan Singh, J.1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ/order/direction for quashing of the proceedings being held against the petitioner and direction to the respondents to review the order of suspension dated 01.06.2009 against the petitioner along with grant of consequential benefits.2. The facts leading up to filing of the present writ are that the petitioner joined the Apeejay school as TGT Electronics in 1995. On 29.08.2008, the petitioner gave a letter to the respondent No. 1 i.e. principal of the school which was allegedly written under her dictation, confessing that the petitioner had slapped some students of the school. As per the petitioner, he was thereafter made to submit his resignation letter on 09.09.2008 under duress as per which he was to be relieved of his services on 31.03.2009. The same was acknowledged and received by the respondent No. 1. Realising that he ought not have ...
Tag this Judgment!Dimple Prakash Shah Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Vide orders dated 26.02.2010 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred as the COFEPOSA), the Joint Secretary to the Government of India has directed that Shri Prakash R. Shah @ Podiyan @ Mamaji (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu') be detained and kept in custody in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. In execution of this order, the detenu was taken into custody on 01.03.2010. He was, at the same time, served with the Grounds of Detention as well as the documents on which the detaining authority relied upon while passing the detention order. The present writ petition of habeas corpus is filed and prayer therein is also made to set aside the impugned order of detention dated 26.02.2010 seeking a direction to the respondents to release the detenu from the detention.2. The facts and the circumstances which led to the passing of the detention order may now be taken note of.3...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay @ Kale Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Conceding that the testimony of PW-3 and PW-6, brother and father respectively of the deceased established the dying declaration made by the deceased Kailash pertaining to the cause of his death and naming the appellant as the assailant; further conceding that the testimony of PW-5 who saw the incident establishes that the appellant struck two blows with a knife on the person of the deceased Kailash; learned Counsel for the appellant has made a short submission, being that, the offence committed by the appellant is culpable homicide not amounting to murder.2. To make good the argument aforenoted, learned Counsel for the appellant draws our attention to the postmortem report Ex.PW-9/A of the deceased which evidences that two blows with a knife were inflicted on the person of the deceased. Both blows were directed on the upper part of the chest towards the shoulder. The first stab wound is on the right side of the chest at the point 11 cm from mid-line and 4 cm ab...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Kishore @ Nanda Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 24.5.2008 the appellant has been convicted for having murdered deceased Smt. Ratna Devi, his aunt, Smt. Pushpa Devi, the daughter of Ratna Devi and Smt. Rekha Devi, the cousin of the appellant.2. That the three ladies were brutally assaulted at House No. 109-B, DDA Flats, Jhilmil Colony, Delhi where Pushpa Devi resided along with her husband Jagdish Batra and her daughter Sakshi is not in dispute. Ratna Devi and Rekha Devi had visited the house to meet Pushpa Devi.3. That on the same day, as recorded on the MLC Ex.PW-10/A, even the appellant was got admitted at the hospital at 5:35 PM, being brought by the CATS Ambulance with multiple incised wounds on his body is also not in dispute.4. The author of the MLC Ex.PW-10/A, Dr. Banarasi PW10, has deposed that he subsequently gave an opinion Ex.PW10/B as per which it was possible that the appellant had himself inflicted the five incised wounds on his person.5. As recorded on the...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Khosla Vs. Vibhu Bakhru and ors.
Court: Delhi
ORDER(Date of final hearing : 31.1.2008)1. It is unfortunate that the petitioner who has come before this Board seeking for equitable remedies should have acted in a manner over reaching this Board during the pendency of the petition filed by her under Sections 397/398 of the Act.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner claiming/entitled to hold 35.5%/49% shares in the company filed this petition alleging that by further issue of shares, the respondents have reduced her shareholding to 18.25%/24.5% and that the respondents are guilty of mismanaging the affairs of the company. Various interim orders were passed inter alia directing the Bench Officer to authenticate the statutory records of the company and also providing opportunity to the petitioner to inspect the said records. The respondents filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act seeking for referring the parties to arbitration on the ground that the entire dispute has arisen out of an agree...
Tag this Judgment!North Eastern Carrying Corporation Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner by means of this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeks quashing of the challans dated 30.7.1999 and 10.8.1999 issued by the respondent/Municipal Corporation of Delhi on the basis of its circulars dated 24.1.1983/19.2.1983 issued under Section 417 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The quashing is sought on four grounds. The first ground is that the impugned circulars have been issued under Section 417(1)(b) of the Act whereas the said provision does not deal with storage of goods-the activity the petitioner engages in as part of its main business as a transporter. The second ground urged is that a reading of the impugned circulars show that they have been issued under Section 417(1)(b) whereas it is Section 417(1)(d) which deals with the requirement of a licence for storage of goods. The third ground is that there is no quid pro quo for the licence fee charged ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Coffee Board Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. X and ...
Court: Delhi
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The petitioner impugns the award dated 5th August, 1998 of the Labour Court holding the termination by the petitioner of the services of the respondent No. 2 workman to be illegal and unjustified and directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent No. 2 workman with full back wages and continuity of service.2. The respondent No. 2 workman was working as a Driver with the petitioner. He applied for and was granted leave from 24th April, 1981 to 21st August, 1981 for visiting relatives and friends in Dubai. However instead of joining back after the expiry of the leave period, the respondent No. 2 workman applied for extension of leave from 22nd August, 1981 to 18th December, 1981 on medical grounds. As the application for extension of leave was not accompanied with medical certificate, the same was not granted. The petitioner on 13th December, 1981 sent a memo at the residential address at Delhi of the respondent No. 2 workman, directing the respondent No. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Shatrughan Vs. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Ajit Bharihoke, J.1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 21st March, 1997 in Sessions Case No. 99/1995, FIR No. 546/1992, Police Station Mangol Puri in terms of which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC as also the consequent order on sentence of even date.2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 31st August 1992 at about 11.20 a.m., on the receipt of information regarding a quarrel near House No. 449, J.K. Tent House, A-II, Sector-8, Rohini, DD No. 14 was recorded at the Police Post Rohini which is Ex.PW12/B. Copy of the DD report was entrusted to SI Vir Singh for verification. SI Vir Singh alongwith Constable Ravinder Kumar went to the spot of occurrence, where he found that the injured Daya Ram (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') had already been removed to hospital. Parag Madho (PW10) was present at the spot of occurrence who produced the appellant before SI Vir Singh and got recorded his statement Ex.PW10/A. SI Vir Si...
Tag this Judgment!