Delhi Court August 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.
Ghanshyam Dass Vs State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?1. By the present petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 23 rd June, 2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, partly allowing the Revision Petition of the petitioner.2. The brief facts necessary for the purpose of deciding this petition are that in FIR No. 360 of 1996, registered at Police Station Mehrauli under Sections 420/34 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC, police filed a charge-sheet on completion of investigation. A supplementary charge-sheet was also filed by the police. In the charge-sheet police had mentioned names of several persons in Column No. 2, who were bonafide subsequent purchasers of the plots of land. Police could find material for trial only against accused Ran Singh, Satbir Singh, Dharam Singh and Karam Singh.3. Vide order dated 5th May, 2001, the learned M.M. directed for issuance o...
Y.S.Dwivedi and anr. Vs Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
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. The writ petitioners of the above captioned writ petitions were applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal and they were fighting the battle with respect to an issue raised by Shri S.K.Jain, respondent No.4 in both the writ petitions.2. Since legal issues which arise for consideration are the same, learned counsel for the parties agree that the facts pertaining to WP(C) No.3874/2010 be noted and the said petition be treated as a lead petition.3. The litigating parties i.e. the petitioners and respondent No.4 are employees in the Engineering Cadre of the Military Engineering Services (MES). All of them are highly qualified engineers and as of the year 1999-2000 were working as Executive Engineers.4. The next promotional post available to them is that of Superintending Engineer.5. Profiling the entry ...
Kulwant Singh Vs State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
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. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant who has been convicted by the trial court under Section 363, 366 and 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years under Section 376 IPC with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, RI for 5 years under Section 366 IPC and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and RI for 3 years under Section 363 IPC and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are that on 21st December, 2002, mother of prosecutrix lodged the report Ex. PW2/A that her daughter, aged around 14 years had left the house on 18 th December, and had not returned back. The appellant used to visit her house and from the date her daughter was missing, appellant was also not at this house and she suspected that the appellant had enticed away her daughter.3. The appellant and the prosecutri...
Kumari Jyoti Gupta (Minor) Vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-2010
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 reported No in the Digest?ORDER.1. The petitioner a student of the respondent no.2 Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, a recognized Government School under the respondent no.1 Director of Education, has filed this writ petition aggrieved from being denied the subject of English in Class-XI and having been instead allocated the subject of Sanskrit. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the admission criteria prescribed in the Circular dated 28 th May, 2010, for the Commerce and the Humanities Stream is as under:- "2. Commerce Stream (with Maths): A student declared passed at the Secondary school examination must have secured at least C2 Grade overall, C1 in Maths and C2 in English and Social Science separately or its equivalent percentage marks in aggregate and in each of the concerned subjects.3. Commerce (without Maths): A s...
Santosh@mustafa Vs State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-2010
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?1. These two appeals have been preferred by the appellants assailing a common judgment dated 25th September 2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted both the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 392 read with Section 34 and 397 IPC and sentenced them vide order dated 1st October 2008 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years under Section 397 IPC with fine of Rs.500/- and three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 392 IPC.2. The FIR against the appellants was lodged on the statement of Rajbir Singh who was the victim of robbery. On 1st April 2007, he was returning from Faridabad Sector-28 where he was working, on his bicycle. When he reached Mangal Bazzar Road street no.4, D Block Sangam Vihar at about 11 pm, the appellants stopped him and asked...
Ravi Shankar Prasad Vs State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-2010
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?1. These two appeals have been preferred by the appellants assailing a common judgment dated 25th September 2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted both the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 392 read with Section 34 and 397 IPC and sentenced them vide order dated 1st October 2008 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years under Section 397 IPC with fine of Rs.500/- and three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 392 IPC.2. The FIR against the appellants was lodged on the statement of Rajbir Singh who was the victim of robbery. On 1st April 2007, he was returning from Faridabad Sector-28 where he was working, on his bicycle. When he reached Mangal Bazzar Road street no.4, D Block Sangam Vihar at about 11 pm, the appellants stopped him and asked...
Bharat Bhushan Gulati Vs Hari Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-2010
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. This second appeal has impugned the judgment dated 29.5.2007 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 20.03.2003 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.2. Plaintiff/appellant had filed a suit for possession stating to be the owner of land measuring 200 sq. yds. bearing no.A3/29, Dal Mill Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. He had purchased it from Hari Prakash on 28.11.1981. Defendant was permitted to use the property as a licensee which license has since been terminated but in spite of request to the defendant to evict the property; he has not vacated the property. The defendant had refuted the claim of the plaintiff. He had claimed ownership by way of adverse possession. The trial court had framed three issues. Issue no.1 was as to whether the plaintiff is owner of suit property While deal...
Chand Kishan Razdaan Vs Hema Saxena and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-2010
ORDER1. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, by the impugned order dated 02.02.2008, has dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner under Sections 418/420/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1882 (IPC for short hereinafter) and has held that there is no ground to summon the respondents-accused.2. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. The petitioner relies upon agreement to sell dated 1 st May, 2006 in respect of second floor of property No. B-18, Ashoka Niketan, Delhi- 92 in which the sale consideration mentioned is as Rs.68 lacs. The relevant allegation in the complaint read as under:- "4. That vide agreement to sell dated 01.05.2006, the accused respondent No. 1, agreed to purchase the IInd floor of the building with roof rights from the complainant for a total consideration of Rs.68 lacs (Rupees sixty eight lakhs only). Out of the said agreed price, the complainant has received Rs.32 lakhs as reflected in the agreement and the balance of Rs.36...
ifci Ltd. Vs Ravinder Balwani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-2010
1. Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be referred in the Yes digest?1. Is the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd. (IFCI Ltd.) a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act)? That is the question that arises for consideration in this writ petition, which challenges an order dated 31st May 2007 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC). The CIC answered the question in the affirmative.2. A complaint was made by the Respondent before the CIC stating that the Petitioner IFCI Ltd. had not published particulars on its website nor appointed Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs) which it was required to do in terms of Section 4, Section 5(1) and 5(2) of the RTI Act respectively, on account of which information available with the IFCI Ltd. concerning the complaints made to it was not able to be accessed. In...
Govt. of Nct of Delhi Vs M/S. Shyam Sunder Goel.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-2010
1. Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be referred in the digest? Yes ORDER1. An interesting question concerning the ineligibility of an elected Municipal Councillor to hold, after being so elected, a Kerosene Oil Dealership (KOD) licence issued by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) arises for consideration in the present petition.2. The Respondents sole proprietor Shri Shyam Sunder Goel, who was elected Councillor of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in the year 2002 was, at the time of being so elected, holding a KOD licence in the name of the proprietary concern of M/s. Shyam Sunder Goel under the Delhi Kerosene Oil (Export & Prices) Control Order, 1962 (Control Order).3. The Respondent was issued the above licence in the year 1976 itself. He did not inform the Food & Supplies Department (FSD) of the GNCTD of the fact of his being elected ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »