Delhi Court July 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 21 of about 331 results (0.019 seconds)Deepak Kumar Vs Delhi Transco Ltd 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 Digest? YesORDER.1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for the following directions:- "(1) direct the respondents to remove the name of the petitioner from overage category;(2) declare the result of part-II papers of the petitioner for ends of justice and(3) pass such other or further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."2. The facts leading to the filing of present petition are as under:- The petitioner had passed matriculation examination in the year 1997. In May, 2002, he had passed senior secondary examination from National Open School. In 2005, petitioner did Diploma in Electric Engineering from Chhotu Ram Rural Institute of Technology, affiliated to Board of Technical Education, Delhi. Respondent no.1 i.e Delhi Transco Ltd requested re...
Tag this Judgment!Uoi Vs J.P.Singh
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. Union of India has sought quashing of the order dated 3.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing OA No.26/2008.2. It is not in dispute that the respondent J.P.Singh has retired from service and holds a lifelong CGHS card entitling him and his dependant i.e. his wife to medical facilities as per the scheme.3. It is also not in dispute that various instructions have been issued under the scheme from time to time and one such instruction is dated 7th September 2001 which envisages that in case of non-emergency situations, beneficiaries of the schemes are entitled to medical reimbursement for treatment only in such hospitals or diagnostic centers which are recognized under the scheme but subject to written permission from the competent authority.4. It is apparent, that there exists an off...
Tag this Judgment!Nakul Kohli Vs State
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reportedin the Digest? YesORDER.1. The Petitioner is facing trial in case FIR No.71/2005 P.S., Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, Delhi registered on the allegation that one travel agent is charging huge amount of money from the innocent people desiring to go to America, wherein the police associated one Jigar Modi a victim of the Petitioners offence. On a trap being laid the Petitioner was apprehended on whose personal search one coloured photocopy of American Visa in the name of Upender Kumar Karsan Bhai was recovered from right side pocket of his pant which was seized. On apprehension, the Petitioner confessed that he along with co-accused had taken Rs. 6,10,000/- from Jigar Modi and his friend. During the investigation, the witness Jigar Modi handed coloured photocopy of US visa depicting the name and photo of Upender Kumar which had bee...
Tag this Judgment!SachIn @ Kalu Vs State of Delhi
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. This is an appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence in case FIR No. 228/2003 PS Maya Puri under Section 376 IPC whereby the Appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000. In default of payment of fine, he has to undergo RI for one year.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 15th September, 2003 at about 3 p.m., when the prosecutrix was going to the toilet, the Appellant, who happens to be her cousin, took her to his jhuggi where he committed rape on her. The Prosecutrix came to her house and informed her mother, who noticed blood around her private parts and on the underwear. The Complainant i.e., the mother of the Prosecutrix, immediately went to the jhuggi of the Ap...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Gufic Ltd. and Another Vs Clinique Laboratories, Llc and anr
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. This appeal is directed against the order passed by a learned single Judge of this court on 09.04.2009 in IA No.15425/2008 (Under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC), IA 217/2009, (Under Order 39 Rule 4, CPC) and IA No.2769/2009 [Under Section 124(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999] in CS(OS) 2607/2008.2. The respondents / plaintiffs had filed IA No.15425/2008 seeking interim relief. An ex parte order had been passed on that application on 16.12.2008 restraining the appellants / defendants from using the mark CLINIQ or any other mark similar to the mark CLINIQUE of the respondents / plaintiffs till the disposal of the application. The defendants were further restrained from marketing any goods or allowing any goods to be marketed under the impugned trademark through their distributors or other agents or from advert...
Tag this Judgment!Vir Prakash Arora and ors. Vs State and ors.
Court: Delhi
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. Pursuant to the order dated 09.04.2010, notices were issued to the respondents No.2 and 3. Notices were duly served on the respondents No.2 and 3. Counsel is present on behalf of respondent No.2 alongwith respondent No.2. However, none is present on behalf of the respondent No.3.2. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.596/2007, registered by the respondent No.2/complainant under Sections 406/120/468/471 IPC with Police Station: Mehrauli.3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/complainant lodged FIR No.596/2007 with Police Station: Mehrauli, alleging that he had purchased from the petitioner No.1, a flat bearing No.1067/7, Mehrauli, New Delhi, situated on the first floor of the suit...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar S/O Shivan Shah Vs State
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes.ORDER1. These appeals arise from a common judgment and order whereby the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 999/2008 has been convicted for offence spunishable under Sec.363/366/376/504 IPC and the Appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 13/2009 has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 376/506 IPC.2. Both the Appellants have been awarded sentence of RI for 7 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default, RI for one month under Section 376 IPC and RI for one year under Section 506 IPC. The Appellant Anil Kumar has also been awarded sentence of RI for 7 years for offence punishable under Section 366 IPC and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default RI for one month, and RI for a period of 2 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default RI for 15 days for offence punishable under Sec.363 IPC.3. The allegations in brief aga...
Tag this Judgment!Pt. Ganga Prasad Sharma Vs Dr. Beni Prasad Sharma
Court: Delhi
(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment?(2) To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes (3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest Yes ORDER.1. Respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for possession in respect of suit property admeasuring 186.5 square yards, which is in possession of the appellant/defendant. Trial Court dismissed the suit of the respondent holding that the land conveyed to the respondent vide Ex.PW-1/1 was not the land for which possession was sought and that respondent had failed to prove his ownership qua the land shown in yellow color in the site plan Ex.PW-4/1. Trial Court also observed that appellant was in continuous possession of the suit property for more than twelve years before filing of the suit.2. Respondent filed an appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Appellate Court vide its impugned judgment and decree dated 26th March 1982, set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and dec...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Bakshi Vs C.B.i
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:1. These bail applications under Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C., for short) have been filed by Mr. K.S. Bakshi and Mr. S.K. Dixit, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, respectively, of Oriental Structures Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (OSEL, for short). The two applicants were arrested by registered against S.K. Nirmal and others. It is stated that the two applicants have been in jail for about the last 45 days.2. Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn my attention to the FIR and the allegations made therein. It has been pointed out that there are factual inaccuracies in the FIR and the following facts are highlighted. The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI, for short) had published an advertisement on 7th December, 2009 inviting applications from experi...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs Mohd. Shahjahan
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? Yes ORDER1. The State Bank of India (SBI) is aggrieved by an order dated 19 th May 2009 passed by the Central Information Centre (CIC) in the appeal filed by the Respondent directing Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) to provide within ten working days the following information: "(i) clear and specified information on how his applications dated 25th January 2007, 9th April and 8th May 2008 had been processed and dealt with by the competent authority, (ii) the disaggregated marks awarded to him in the promotion process and(iii) information in respect of the bills submitted by him as stated in his original application for information." 2. By the impugned order, the CIC also directed the CPIO to explain why the penalty proceedings under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act 2005 (RTI Act) should not be ini...
Tag this Judgment!