Delhi Court July 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 1 of about 331 results (0.020 seconds)Naveen Chauhan @ Chussi Vs State
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes ORDER.1. The appellants were acquitted by us vide a separate order dated 28.7.2010. While acquitting them, we stated that the reasons for our decision would follow. We, accordingly, are recording reasons for their acquittal.2. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 19.1.2010, and Order on Sentence dated 27.1.2010, whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 thereof and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs 2,000/- each or to undergo SI for six months each in default.3. On 30th April, 2006, at about 3.55 pm., Bhola Chaudhary, brother of deceased Anita, informed Police Control Room that someone had cut the throat of his sister (wrongly recorded as aunt) in House No.304, Gali No.1, Durga Park, Nasir Pur. On receipt of this informat...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Khosla Vs Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. The petitioner herein has preferred a petition for criminal contempt of Court. It was filed in the Registry of this Court on 31.05.2010, which has not been listed so far. In that petition, the petitioner has alleged that in some proceedings pending between the petitioner and the opposite party, the opposite party has levelled certain allegations of bias and prejudice against a judge of this Court, which according to him, amounts to contempt of the Court. In this petition, we are not concerned with the merit of the criminal contempt petition preferred by the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is against non listing of the said petition on the judicial side.2. We would like to point out that the petitioner had applied for the consent of the Law Officer, but the Law Officer has declined the same, as ...
Tag this Judgment!Mamta Bhatnagar and anr. Vs State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?1. The applicants/petitioners have prayed for anticipatory bail. A complaint under Section 403/406/408/409/420 IPC was registered against them resulting into F.I.R. No.375 of 2006. The allegations against the accused Anil Kumar Rajpal are that he was Chief Executive Director of the Co-operative Society and he had initiated a scheme for providing LIC cover to the members of the Society. He had assured the members that no agent would be involved in this scheme and premium would be collected from the salary of the members of Society and paid directly to LIC. However, he clandestinely got two of his relatives, namely, Smt. Mamta Bhatnagar and Smt. Preeti Bhatnagar appointed as agents with LIC with a result that these two agents were paid a commission of Rs.1,20,00,000/- by LIC. The other allegations are that the LIC policies obtai...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar Rajpal Vs State
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?1. The applicants/petitioners have prayed for anticipatory bail. A complaint under Section 403/406/408/409/420 IPC was registered against them resulting into F.I.R. No.375 of 2006. The allegations against the accused Anil Kumar Rajpal are that he was Chief Executive Director of the Co-operative Society and he had initiated a scheme for providing LIC cover to the members of the Society. He had assured the members that no agent would be involved in this scheme and premium would be collected from the salary of the members of Society and paid directly to LIC. However, he clandestinely got two of his relatives, namely, Smt. Mamta Bhatnagar and Smt. Preeti Bhatnagar appointed as agents with LIC with a result that these two agents were paid a commission of Rs.1,20,00,000/- by LIC. The other allegations are that the LIC policies obtai...
Tag this Judgment!Kenneth Builders and Developers Ltd Vs Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? YES ORDER1. The Delhi Development Authority issued an advertisement on its website on 20.03.2006 announcing DDAs first public-private participation project involving auction of prime residential land at Tehkhand in South Delhi. As per the said announcement, the new initiative to involve the private sector in Delhis development was taken to meet the new challenges of an ever evolving capital city and its growing housing needs. By virtue of the said announcement, the DDA invited private parties for the development of the composite project area of 14.3 hectares of prime land at Tehkhand in South Delhi for building 750 premium residential flats to be sold by private real estate development on free sale basis, with a maximum FAR of 80000 sq. metres and maximum ground coverage of 15000 sq. metres. As regards the locatio...
Tag this Judgment!Bachchi Singh and Another Vs the State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? YesORDER.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23rd April 1997, and Order on Sentence dated 26th April 1997, whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 302 and 392 of IPC read with Section 34 thereof, and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs 1000/- each or to undergo SI for one month each in default under Section 302 IPC and were further sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years each under Section 392/34 of IPC. The co- accused of the appellants, namely Ramesh and Hira Singh were convicted under Section 411 of IPC and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years each.2. Deceased Dr. R.N. Berry and his wife Rama Berry, who were residing in House No. 145 Jor Bagh, New Delhi, were found murdered in the morning of 2nd February 1987. The appellant Gopal Singh w...
Tag this Judgment!Mukund Lal Vs Commissioner of Police, Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. Claim of the writ petitioner, by and under WP(C)No.6602/1998, which was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal and was re-numbered as T.A.No.3/2006, was of denial of the benefits which flowed out of judgment and order dated 26.7.1984 when WP(C)No.79/1981 filed by the petitioner was allowed quashing the order of penalty imposed upon the petitioner. It was held that the petitioner would be entitled to all the consequential benefits.2. The grievance of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6602/1998 was that during the period post issuance of a charge sheet to him and penalty being imposed and further till W.P.(C) No.79/1981 was decided, persons junior to him and in particular the person immediately junior to him i.e. Constable Om Prakash was promoted as Head Constable and thereafter as ASI, SI and Inspector. ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhushan Kumar and anr. Vs State and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners for setting aside order dated 16th January, 2009 passed by the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate and to quash the proceedings initiated therein under F.I.R. No.290 of 2002 registered under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Okhla Industrial Area. The order dated 16th January, 2009 shows that after receiving charge sheet in case F.I.R. No.290 of 2002, the court took cognizance of the offence and directed for summoning the accused through Investigating Officer for 20th July, 2009. Quashing is sought on the ground that the F.I.R. and the proceedings initiated there under was a gross misuse of the criminal justice system and learned trial court committed an error in law in not summoning the offending company named in the F.I.R. and issuing process against the directors. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and ors Vs Mr.V.K.Puri
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO the Digest?ORDER.1. The petitioners Union of India through Ministry of Defence impugns order dated 22nd January, 2008 passed in O.A No.851/2007, V.K.Puri v. Union of India directing the petitioners to treat the Navy service of the respondents towards qualifying service for grant of prorata pension.2. Brief facts to comprehend the disputes between the parties are that the respondent was enrolled in Indian Navy as Boy I on 20th August, 1945 and he served as apprentice till 10th September, 1947 and his service was treated as approved war service. Thereafter on 20th March, 1950 respondent joined the Indian navy.3. As per the rules in the year 1960 on release from the service an employee was entitled to avail the benefit of leave pending retirement and consequently the respondent who was to be discharged from Navy with effec...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Jagat Casting Co.(P) Ltd. Vs Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes1. The action of the Respondent No. 2 Uttar Pradesh Finance Corporation (UPFC) in selling the properties of the Petitioner No. 1 Company, which defaulted in repayment of a loan borrowed by it from the UPFC, by way of a private sale to the Respondent No. 4 in exercise of its powers under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (SFC Act) is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 2. The property at plot No. A-20, Sikandrabad Industrial Area, District Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh was leased to the Petitioner No.1 company, of which Petitioners 2 and 3 are Directors, for a period of 99 years by the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation by a lease deed dated 28th March 1978. The UPFC remitted Rs. 1 lakh towards the cost of the plot whereas the Petitioner No. 1 paid Rs. 2...
Tag this Judgment!