Delhi Court July 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 16 of about 331 results (0.024 seconds)Govt. of Nct of Delhi Vs Shri Dev Sharma
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. (Oral)1. The facts are not in dispute. So let them be stated as the agreed facts.2. Since 23.12.1980, Dev Sharma stood appointed as a Care Taker in the Department of Social Welfare and served the department fairly well evidenced by the fact that never ever was he issued a memorandum or a charge-sheet alleging misconduct.3. His service is governed by the Delhi Administration Subordinate Service Rules 1967, Rule 6 whereof made him eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of LDC/Grade- IV (DASS) in the year 1995 inasmuch as he has the requisite educational qualification, being a matriculate.4. Whereas, vide order dated 13.12.1995 persons junior to Dev Sharma were promoted as Grade-IV (DASS)/LDC, Dev Sharma was overlooked for the reason his personal file could not be located. From time to time thereafter ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Deepak Gupta Vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
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. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that the Court should set aside the summoning order dated 20th October, 2008 passed by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and should quash the charge-sheet filed by the respondent under Section 173 Cr.P.C. after completing the investigation in an FIR registered under Section 420, 471 read with Section 468 IPC .2. The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order taking cognizance and quashing of charge-sheet filed by the respondent is grossly misconceived. FIR in this case was filed in January, 2005 and CBI was directed to do the investigation. CBI after completing investigation filed charge-sheet against the petitioner and some of the accused persons, before the Court of CMM. Court of CMM vide order dated 20th October,...
Tag this Judgment!Chand Ram and ors. 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. Present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 33 of 2003, P.S. Narela, under section 498-A, 406, 506 and 34 of IPC.2. After filing of this FIR, the parties were, with the intervention of court, referred to Lok Adalat. The wife in the case is a Constable in Delhi Police and the husband is an army man. The parties had four children. As per compromise, both husband and wife agreed to obtain divorce by mutual consent, and to give up all their claims against each other and to maintain and keep custody of two children each. It was also agreed that they shall not claim any maintenance for the children from each other and all cases and applications made by the parties against each other shall stand withdrawn / cancelled. Statements of both the parties were recorded to this effect on 5th March, 2005. Wife in her statement...
Tag this Judgment!Kashi Mandal and ors. 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 is filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR on the basis of a compromise.2. The petitioner was facing trial under section 380, 420, 468 & 471 IPC at P.S. Naraina. As per the allegations made against the petitioner, the petitioner had stolen cheque along with its counter-foil from the office of complainant at Naraina. The complainant learnt about this theft upon reconciliation of his accounts on 21st October, 2008, when he found that amount of Rs. 14, 75,000/- had been drawn to the account of petitioner No. 1 Kashi Mandal. The complainant immediately approached his banker and learnt that this amount was transferred on 13th June, 2008 to the account of petitioner No. 1. Further inquiry revealed that the account was opened by the petitioner No. 1 with Union Bank of India for the purpose of encashing the stolen...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Gunda Neubauer Vs Bhanwar Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
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. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing an award dated 8th August 2007 passed by learned Tribunal on the ground that the compensation awarded to the appellant was inadequate.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the present appeal are that that appellant, a German national, had come to India as a tourist. She was traveling in a bus and was going to Mount Abu from Udaipur when the said bus met with an accident with a truck coming from opposite direction. In this accident, the appellant lost her arm on junction up one third and middle one third. She filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and she was awarded compensation in following terms: (i) Pain and sufferings: Rs.2,00,000/-(ii) Medical bills: DM 1,14,367.08 (Rs.15,61,110.64) (iii) Bill of p...
Tag this Judgment!D.K.Tyagi Vs State Thru Cbi
Court: Delhi
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. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing of FIR No. RC.AC.3/2004-A0002 dated 24.05.2004, lodged under section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and section 120B IPC r/w section 420/468/471 IPC, P.S. ACU-III, CBI.2. The main ground taken by the petitioner is that the respondent had not obtained sanction against the petitioner under section 197 Cr. P.C. It is contended that since the petitioner was charged with the offence under IPC along with offences under the provisions of corruption act and the offence under IPC could not be separated from the offences of prevention of corruption act and even if no sanction was necessary under Prevention of Corruption Act, sanction under section 197 Cr. P.C. was necessary for offence under IPC si...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Police Vs R.D. Mittal and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the 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? Yes1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to impugn the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 6.3.1998 in terms whereof an application filed by the respondent No.1 herein against his transfer in the post of an Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) was held to be bad in law on account of lack of allocation of authority in the Commissioner of Police to carry out such a transfer. The substratum of the disputes is as to whether powers of transfer in case of an ACP, vests with the Commissioner of Police, Delhi or with the Lieutenant Governor as Administrator. We may note that respondent No.1 has since passed away and his legal heirs have been brought on record. The matter has however been prosecuted by the Commissioner of Police on account the impor...
Tag this Judgment!Upsc Vs Uoi and ors.
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 the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER. (ORAL)1. Rule DB.2. Heard for disposal.3. Instant case is a classic example as to how the Government breeds litigation notwithstanding repeated public posturing by the executive that the house of the Government is being put in order.4. Various persons working in Group D posts under the Union of India were made to work for long duration as LDCs on ad-hoc basis.5. They made repeated representations that their services be regularized and showed to the authority concerned the source of the power for the authority concerned to do the needful; namely, Rule 12 of the CSCS Rules 1962 which reads as under: "12 Recruitment to the Lower Division Grade of the Service-(1) Vacancies in the Lower Division Grade shall be filled in the following manner, namely:-(a) Fifteen percent of vacancies in each cadre may be filled by appo...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Awadh Pandey Vs Piyush
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. By this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has assailed order dated 14th July, 2008 passed by learned ASJ in a Revision Petition.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner, an Advocate, filed complaint before the court of learned M.M. in his personal capacity as complainant. Learned M.M. dismissed the complaint finding that there was no substance in the complaint. 3. Against the order of learned M.M., the petitioner preferred a revision before learned ASJ. Learned ASJ, after going through the facts of the case, came to conclusion that the order of learned M.M. was as per law and there was no substance in the complaint.4. The complaint was filed by the petitioner that a pro-note and cheque was got signed from him without making him payment of the pro-note amount...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Suraj Bhan and ors. Vs Sh. Bharat Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
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? YesORDER.1.Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for setting aside order dated 26th March, 2010 passed by Ms. Bimla Makin, District Judge-VIII, Rent Control Tribunal (for short as Tribunal) Delhi and in consequence thereof set aside orders dated 16th October, 2008, 8th September, 2008, 12th May, 2008 and 14th January, 2008 passed by Mr. Amit Kumar, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi and further to set aside order dated 8th May, 2008, passed by Sh. Chander Sekhar, Rent Control Tribunal.2. The facts as apparent from the record of this case are that, respondent no. 1 Sh. Bharat Singh (Since deceased) and respondent no. 2 Sh. Kirpa Ram (Since deceased) filed an eviction petition on the grounds under Section 14 (1) (a), (c) and (j) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (fo...
Tag this Judgment!