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.
Dipen Sunil Nayak (Minor) Through Vs Central Board of Secondary School ...
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 had appeared in the Class-XII Board examination held by the respondent Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). The petitioner has been declared as "fail" in the subject of Physics with only 33% marks therein. The respondent appeared in the supplementary examination in the subject of Physics and has been able to secure only 38 marks. This writ petition has been filed seeking mandamus to the respondent CBSE to produce the answer sheets of the petitioner in the subject of Physics in the main examination as well as supplementary examination to enable the petitioner to satisfy himself that the answer sheets which have been marked are of the petitioner only and have not been mixed up with the answer sheets of any other student.2. The counsel for the petitioner admits that the rules of th...
Shri Poonya Ram Through Lrs . Vs Shri Durga Prasad (Substituted by Shr ...
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. Poonya Ram the plaintiff has filed a suit for eviction against the Durga Prasad. The suit property was a pucca room shown in red colour in the map annexed along with the plaint situated in Mohalla Bagar Ka Bas, near Police Lines, Alwar. Plaintiff claimed possession of the suit property.2. Case of the plaintiff was that on 14.7.1991 he had purchased a pucca house consisting three rooms, a verandah, two kitchens with vacant land in front having neem trees and a banyan tree. Durga Prasad, the defendant was his cousin. He approached the plaintiff on 15.10.1972 and requested him to permit him user of one of the three rooms for storing fodder for a few days. Without doubting the intention of the defendant, the plaintiff permitted him to do so. Defendant had convinced the plaintiff that he shall shortly i...
Brahler Ics India Pvt. Ltd.and anr. Vs Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2010
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NoORDER.1. The petitioners are the manufacturer and authorised dealer respectively of Brahler ICS and DIS brands of digital audio-conferencing systems. The same product is manufactured and sold through authorised dealers being respondents No. 5 and 6 respectively in respect of the brand Bosch. The petitioners claim that they are world- renowned in their product, which has been installed in different UN Organizations as also at both the Houses of Parliament, Prime Ministers House, Vigyan Bhawan, various State Legislatures, etc.2. The Central Public Works Department ( for short, CPWD ) floated a tender in March, 2009 short-listing the aforesaid three brands for participating in the tender for supply, installation, commissioning and after-sales service of digital audio-conferencing system in Lok Sabha replacing the...
A.K.Gupta Vs State Thru Cbi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-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. In this country a folklore goes that if you are caught taking bribe you can get scot free by giving bribe. In this case, CBI intended to prove the same.2. The petitioner in this case was caught accepting bribe from a complainant who had official business pending with the petitioner, working as Engineer in the department where a trap was laid on the basis of a complaint lodged on 17th November, 1990. The petitioner was caught red handed on 19th November, 1990 at Room No. 22, First Floor of Hotel Maharaja, in the evening in the presence of shadow witness. The investigation was referred to CBI, CBI did not file result of investigation for 11 long years in a trap case where the investigation would not have taken more than few days. Ultimately, the CBI filed a closure report after 11 long years. The CBI had no ex...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs Moni Kumar SubbA.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2010
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers 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. The assessee had filed the return for the Assessment Year 2001-02 declaring an income of Rs.2,52,510/-. While framing the assessment under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee had let out property bearing No.267, Masjid Moth, Uday Park, New Delhi. The total rent received for the part period was Rs.6.95 lakhs. In fact, monthly rent agreed between the assessee (landlord) and the tenant was Rs.90,000/-. However, the assessee had also taken security deposit of Rs.8.58 Crores, which was interest free, i.e. the tenant had given the aforesaid security deposit on which no interest was payable by the assessee/landlord to the tenant. In the subsequent Assessment Year, another property, viz., 87, Adhichini, New Delhi was also re...
Smt. Renu Saxena Vs Sunil Saxena
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2010
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may Yes be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in the Digest?ORDER.1. By this appeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and decree dated 10.9.2003, whereby, the court of learned Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissed the petition filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.2. Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present appeal are that the appellant was married to the respondent according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 29.7.1991 at Kalkaji temple, New Delhi which fact is denied by the respondent. Thereafter the respondent left for his native place at Kanpur and after return contacted the appellant but evaded living with her on one pretext or the other. Feeling cheated by the respondent, the appellant preferred to file a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marr...
Rajan Behl Vs State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-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 judgment should be reported in Digest?1. By present revision petition, the petitioner has assailed judgment dated 18th May, 2010 and order on sentence dated 21st May, 2010 passed by the appellate court. The petitioner was convicted by the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 63 of Copyright Act and under Sections 78 and 79 of Trademarks and Merchandise Act and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 63 of Copy Right Act and 78 and 79 of Trademarks Act apart from fine of Rs.50,000/- under Section 63 of Copyright Act and Rs.1,000/- each under Section 78 and 79 of Trademarks Act.2. On an appeal preferred by the petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge maintained the conviction of both the accused persons, however, while sentencing, the learned Sessions Judge reduced the sentence of imprisonment from six months' rigorous imprisonmen...
Rajpal Kumar and anr. Vs Food Corporation of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2010
1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER.1.The present intra court appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 20th January, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.7284/2008.2. The writ petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) are the sons of ex-employees of the Food Corporation of India (for short the FCI). Their respective fathers sought voluntary retirement inspired by the circular of the FCI dated 3rd July, 1996. It is not in dispute that the fathers had sought voluntary retirement on medical grounds as a promise was held out to them that consequent upon their such retirement, their dependents would be given compassionate appointments in their place. In their letters, they had requested that their sons should be provided jobs in their place. They were sent for me...
Smt. Nargis and ors. Vs Dda and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2010
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No. 1. Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 24th May, 2010 passed in WP(C) 13309/2009 whereby appellants-petitioners' prayer for allotment of alternative plots after demolition of jhuggis has been rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground that appellants-petitioners did not meet the eligibility criteria.2. Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel for appellants stated that when the appellants were evicted on 16th January, 1988, they were in possession of ration cards. He further contended that after the survey of all the jhuggis, the claims of the appellants had been verified and they had been issued slips for alternative plots. Accordingly, Mr. Chakraborty submitted that respondent-DDA was under an obligation to hand over possession of plots bearing Nos. B-1/134,...
Sh.Surender Joshi Vs Amardeep Mantaj Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-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 judgment should be reported in Digest? ORDER.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.6,53,230/- with interest @ 10% per annum pendente lite and future.2. Succinctly stated the case of the respondent/plaintiff as set out in the plaint is that the defendant/appellant is dealing with the purchase and procurement of DEPB licence and under which the appellant/defendant used to purchase the DEPB licence from the respondent/plaintiff from time to time, which were issued to the plaintiff by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industries. The respondent/plaintiff also received DEPB licence from the appellant/defendant occasionally, for which the respondent/plaintiff was maintaining a running account of the appellant/defendant in respect of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »