Delhi Court July 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Lt. Cdr. G.S. Beniwal (Retd.) Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-2010
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner gives up prayer (i), in view of the decision of this court that opinions rendered by Armed Forces Tribunal would be subject to judicial review by High Court.2. Learned counsel presses the writ petition pertaining to prayer (ii) and (iii).3. Impugned order dated 20.5.2010 reads as under:-"Heard. There is no ground to interfere in the matter in view of decision of the Hon”ble Supreme Court dated 26.10.2009 given in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.16341/2008 filed by the petitioner titled as "G.S. Beniwal vs. Union of India & Ors.”. Consequently, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs."4. It is apparent that the Tribunal had, at the back of its mind, the principles of „Constructive Res-Judicata” enshrined under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and as a principle of general law, applicable to proceedings other than suits.5. Relevant facts are that on 3.7.1984, the petitioner was permitted to proceed ...
Gurkaran Singh Bakshi Vs Cbi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes.1. By the above two petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioners have sought directions for quashing of FIR No. RC 4(E)/2006/EOW-I/DLI dated 30th November 2006 registered at Police Station CBI/EOW-I, New Delhi under Sections 120B read with Sections 420,467,468,471, 477A of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.2. The petitioner Bhupinder Pal Singh Bakshi was one of the directors of M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Limited. He is one of the accused in the above FIR and other accused persons include S.K. Chawla, the then Chief Manager of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Gurkaran Singh Bakshi, Kishan Lal @ Surjeet Singh @ Gabbar, Virender Kumar Sehgal and S.K. Rathi. M/s Pavi Overseas Limited, a company of the petitioner, submitted and requested for sanction of cash c...
Rakesh Kumar and ors. Vs State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No be allowed to see the Judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest?ORDER. (Oral)1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.12/2007 under Sections 408/420/468/471/34 IPC registered with PS Kingsway Camp, Model Town lodged by the respondent No.2/complainant, M/s Saya Automobile Limited.2. It is the case of the respondent No.2/Company that the petitioners induced it to part with physical deliveries of new motor vehicles to the customers, without receipt of proper sale consideration, thus causing wrongful loss to the respondent No.2.3. Counsels for the parties state that after the aforesaid FIR was lodged by the respondent No.2 against them, investigations are going on. However, in the meantime, the parties are stated to have arrived at an amicable ...
Bhupinder Pal Singh Bakshi Vs Cbi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes.1. By the above two petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioners have sought directions for quashing of FIR No. RC 4(E)/2006/EOW-I/DLI dated 30th November 2006 registered at Police Station CBI/EOW-I, New Delhi under Sections 120B read with Sections 420,467,468,471, 477A of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.2. The petitioner Bhupinder Pal Singh Bakshi was one of the directors of M/s Pavi Overseas Pvt. Limited. He is one of the accused in the above FIR and other accused persons include S.K. Chawla, the then Chief Manager of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Gurkaran Singh Bakshi, Kishan Lal @ Surjeet Singh @ Gabbar, Virender Kumar Sehgal and S.K. Rathi. M/s Pavi Overseas Limited, a company of the petitioner, submitted and requested for sanction of cash c...
M/S Advance Steel Tubes Limited Vs S.K. Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER1.Petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constirution of India, challenging order dated 1st June, 2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi, vide which application of petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short as Code) for amendment of written statement was dismissed.2. Brief facts of this case are that respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of possession, arrears of rent, damages and future mesne profits/damages against the petitioner. Para 1 of the plaint reads as under;"That the plaintiff is the absolute owner and landlady of the property bearing No.15/1, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002"3. Para 2 of the plaint among other things states;"That the defendant is a tenant of the plaintiff in respect of the front portion on the third floor...
Mohinder Bhatti Vs State of the Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may Yes be allowed to see the Judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be Yes reported in the Digest?ORDER. (Oral)1. The matter was passed over on the first call as none was present on behalf of the petitioner. Same is the position even on the second call. Pertinently, the petitioner is in jail and is being represented by a counsel engaged by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.2. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying inter alia for his release on parole for a period of three months, to engage a Senior Advocate for filing a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court; for arranging funds for the medical treatment for his mother and for renewing social ties with the members of his family and the society.3. The petitioner, who was convicted in a case, registered as FIR No.37/2007 with Police Station: Khajuri Khas, under Section 376/506...
R.K. Sharma Vs Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
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 the Digest? Yes ORDER1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner, a Company Commander of the Railway Protection Force (hereinafter referred to as `RPF' for brevity), Tundla, has challenged the order dated 14th September, 1989 (wrongly mentioned as 18th September, 1989 in the writ petition) of the disciplinary authority finding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him and imposing the punishment of removal from service. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 15th of June 1990 rejecting the appeal filed by him before the Director General, RPF, Railway Board, New Delhi.2. The petitioner was appointed as a Sub Inspector in the Railway Protection Force by an order of appointment in the year 1965 passed by the General Manager, Northern Railway. He was promoted in September 1981, to the post o...
Vijay Chandra Vs State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers 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 DigestORDER.(Oral)1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. IPC praying inter alia for grant of exemption from personal appearance for a period of three months ending on 30.9.2010, in the trial court in respect of the case on the basis of FIR No.272/2006 lodged by Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, his sister-in-law, against his brother, mother and other members of the family, under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC, registered with PS Timarpur.2. The petitioner is an employee with the Kumayun Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd., Nainital, Uttarakahand and is the organizer-in-charge for conducting the pilgrimage to Kailash-Mansrovar and has been deputed by his employer to conduct and organize the yatra this year.3. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the complaint lodged by his sister-in-law, Ms. ...
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and anr. Vs Smt. Neelu Bhatia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
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. It is settled law that there is a difference, though subtle, between an order of transfer of an employee and an order posting an employee.2. It is also settled law that whether it is a case of transfer or of posting, in the exigencies of service, notwithstanding there being a policy guideline notified pertaining to transfer or posting, a transfer or a posting can be done outside the policy guideline, subject to the employer justifying the same on the known principles of exigencies of service.3. It is also settled law that every wrong may not be actionable. It is only when a wrong results in an injury, can it be said that the wrong is actionable.4. Instant writ petition has to be allowed for the reason we find that the Tribunal has, in the instant case, violated all aforesaid three known principles of law.5. Th...
Satinder Lohia and ors Vs State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest?ORDER. (Oral)1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for quashing of proceedings initiated by the respondent No.2/complainant against the petitioners on the basis of an FIR No.306/2009 lodged by him under Sections 323/452/506/34 IPC registered with PS Mehrauli.2. It is stated in the petition that the dispute between the petitioners and respondents No.2 & 3 (petitioners in Crl.M.C.2204/2010) arose out of non-payment of rent by the respondent No.2 & 3, who are the tenants of one Smt. Gyanwati, landlady in respect of the premises bearing No.39-A, Silver Oak Farm, Ghitorni, New Delhi. The petitioners herein are the sons of the landlady. Both the parties state that when the mother of the petitioners wanted to seek recovery of rent from the respondents No.2 & ...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »