Delhi Court July 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 5 of about 331 results (0.013 seconds)Indian Hockey Federation Vs Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
ORDERExemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of.1. The Indian Hockey Federation (IHF) which had earlier come to this Court with Writ Petition (C) No. 3713 of 2008 challenging its disaffiliation by the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) Respondent No.3 and its consequent de-recognition by the Union of India through Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (MYAS) Respondent No.1, is again before this Court challenging a communication dated 10th/11th August 2009 issued by the MYAS granting provisional recognition to Hockey India (HI) Respondent No.4 herein as well as a letter dated 13th July 2010 by the MYAS addressed to the Secretary General, HI conveying its "no objection to the holding of the elections of HI".2. The principal contention advanced by Mr. Arvind Nigam, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner was that after the judgment dated 21 st May 2010 of this Court allowing Writ Petition (C) No. 3713 of 2008, setting aside the decision of b...
Tag this Judgment!U-like Minority Welfare Education Socity Vs Municipal Corporation of D ...
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the 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 reported in the Digest? No The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4 th May, 2010 whereby the appellant's writ petition being WP(C) No. 3267/1994 has been disposed of with a direction that if the appellant applies afresh for recognition within a period of two weeks under Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (in short 'DSEA'), then the respondent would process the application and convey its decision to the appellant within a period of ten weeks. 2. The relevant facts of the present case are that the appellant has been running a primary school. On 18th December, 1990, Assistant Education Officer (Grants) (in short 'AEO') granted recognition without aid to the appellant's school only for the year 1990-91 subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. However, subsequently on 11...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Institute of Banking and Finance Vs Mukul Srivastava
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 1.The short question is whether the Indian Institute of Banking & Finance, the Petitioner herein, is a `public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act).2. The facts in brief are that the Respondent Mukul Srivastava, an employee of the Punjab National Bank, enrolled with the Petitioner Institute and appeared for the Junior Associate of the Indian Institute of Bankers (JAIIB) examination conducted by it under the old syllabus in December 2003. Although, he passed in the "Single Basic Accountancy" paper in 2004, he could not clear the remaining subjects under the old syllabus till December 2005. Even under the revised syllabus he could not complete the examination by December 2007. He enrolled afresh for the first block of two attempts for JAIIB examination in Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Surinder Singh Vs Tilak Raj
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER1. This second appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 22.10.2007 endorsing the finding of the trial court dated 19.3.2005 wherein the suit of the plaintiff/respondent Tilak Raj for possession and damages had been decreed in his favour.2. This appeal has been preferred by the tenant/appellant. The questions of law have been formulated on page 6 of the appeal. It is submitted that the landlord/respondent i.e. Tilak Raj, even as per his own case was the lessee of the lessor who is Delhi Development Authority (DDA); DDA should have been impleaded as a party. Further the conviction of the respondent Tilak Raj for the offence punishable under Section 453 of the IPC was primarily the reason for treating the appellant as a tress-passer which is an incorrect appreciation of the legal proposition...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhan Vs Union of India 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.These four Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed by four accused persons facing trial before the learned Sessions Judge under section 342, 365 and 120-B IPC. The petitioners have assailed order dated 1st April, 2010 dismissing their applications under section 91 Cr. P.C., filed for directions to CBI to supply certain documents and statements allegedly in possession of CBI.2. The petitioners/accused persons are police officials against whom this FIR was registered at the instance of High Court of Punjab & Haryana and investigation was handed over to CBI. Accused Sumedh Singh Saini was, at that time, SSP Ludhiana. It was alleged by the complainant that he had enmity with owner of M/s Saini Motors and during his tenure as SSP, a number of cases were registered against the owner and other family members...
Tag this Judgment!Sumitomo Chemical India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of the local papers 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 ORDER 1.The present lis, though frescoes a picture and depicts a scenario at the very nucleus level pertaining to the stem principles in the realm of award of contract inclusive of the undeniable concept of the element of public interest regard being had to the essential power of flexibility bestowed on the owner called allowable free play in the joints, yet the said inherent features were differently graduated and calibrated to the arena of competition and no- competition, owners role in the field of adaptability due to necessity on one hand and guillotining of the same on the other by bending the norms with an undue sense of generosity and mal-adroit propensity of impropriety and malice judged on the scale of balance. Thus, the duty cast is to adjudge whether the decision taken by the respondents, in the...
Tag this Judgment!Ram @ Ram Dass Vs State 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? Yes ORDER.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.10.2009 and Order on Sentence dated 5.11.2009, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- or to undergo RI for one year in default.2. The case of the prosecution, as disclosed in the FIR registered at the statement of Shyam @ Sudama, brother of the appellant, is that on 12th March, 2008 at about 7.45 pm, he went to the house of the appellant at RZS-160 (near 50' wide Road), Nihal Vihar, to discuss a financial matter. When he reached the house of the appellant, he found him holding a knife in his right hand and telling his wife deceased Guddo that he was aware of her affair and he would finished her that day. The appellant, according to the informant, ...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjeev JaIn 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. On directions of this court in Civil Writ Petition No.10066 of 2004, a case was registered by CBI vide RC/EOU-I 2006 E 0007 and investigation was done by CBI. After investigation, charge sheet was filed and learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide its order dated 25th September, 2008 discharged accused Sanjeev Jain while directed for framing charge against other accused persons under provisions of Indian Penal Code.2. Against the order of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, a writ petition was preferred by CBI and learned Special Judge for CBI, Karkardooma Courts vide his order dated 6th February, 2010 reversed the order of discharge of Sanjeev Jain and observed that role of Sanjeev Jain cannot be segregated from his accomplices to the crime and he directed for framing charges against accused Sanjeev Jain as well. ...
Tag this Judgment!Kunti Devi Vs Shehnaz Mansoor and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER.1. Kunti Devi is the appellant in this second appeal. She had commenced litigation in the trial court by filing a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction on 17.4.1996. It had been averred that Mst.Shehnaz Mansoor and Mansoor Jamal (respondents in the present appeal who have filed cross objections) are illegal and unauthorized occupants in the suit property. She had accordingly sought a prayer restraining them from making any further construction in property no.6514, Ahata Kidara Estate, Idgah Road, Delhi. A second prayer had been made that the defendants should be directed to demolish all illegal/unauthorized construction already raised by them.2. The case of the plaintiff was that she had become the owner of this property after the death of her husband Pishori Lal Sahni by virtue of a will dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Shishir Bajaj and ors.Vs India Youth Centres Trust and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers YES may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? YES3. Whether the judgment should be YES reported in the Digest?ORDER1. The plaintiffs seek declaration challenging the appointments of the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants as the trustees of the first defendant (hereafter referred to as "the trust"); directing their consequential removal from the Board of Trustees; further, declaration that the resolutions in the meetings held on 19.09.2009 are illegal and void and injunction against the defendants from holding or participating in any meetings of the Board of Trustees in relation to the trust.2. The facts to the extent they are relevant and undisputed are that the Trust was originally incorporated as "WAY India Youth Centres Trust" through a Deed dated 10.08.1961 - its founder trust included Shri Morarji Desai, Smt. Indira Gandhi, Shri Naval Tata and Shri R.K. Bajaj etc. On 05.06.1973, through a supplementary deed, T...
Tag this Judgment!