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.
Jaspreet Kaur Vs State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
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. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 182 IPC by the police on the ground that provisions under Section 195 (1) (a) Cr.P.C. were not complied with.2. The petitioner had made a complaint to SHO on 5th May, 2004 that her husband Sh. Parmeet Singh Narula on that day had destroyed her passport. On investigation this complaint was found to be false as on the basis of same passport which she claimed to have been destroyed, she applied for visa to Australian Embassy and also applied for her permanent residence in Australia in the year 2005-2006. After finding the complaint made by the petitioner to be a false complaint, Sub-Inspector Ishwar Singh sent a report under Section 182 IPC to the court of conce...
State (Govt. of Nct Delhi) Vs Rajesh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may Yes be allowed to see the Judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be Yes reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for setting aside the order dated 5.2.2008 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge in a case on the basis of an FIR No.319/2005 holding inter alia that no case under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short 'the Act') was made out against the respondent, as sanction was obtained at a subsequent date after filing of the charge sheet.2. The facts of the present case are undisputed and lie in a narrow compass. The allegations made in the petition are that the respondent, who is a life convict and was undergoing sentence in some other case at Rohtak Jail, upon getting parole, made a plan to commit robbery in a bank, for which purpose, he engaged two other accused, namely, Ram Kish...
M/S Pragati Paper Mill Ltd. Vs M/S British Motor Car Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
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 96 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2003 passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge whereby the suit for recovery of Rs.15,65,999/- filed by the appellant was dismissed.2. Brief facts relevant for deciding the present appeal are that the appellant purchased a car "Opel Astra" of registration no. DL 8C F 3535 from the respondent no.1 on 18.9.99 for a sum of Rs. 7, 55,000/- after availing a discount of Rs. 1, 59,875/- . The said car was initially sold by the respondents to one Ms. Rewa but was surrendered by her as the cheque issued by her towards the sale price of the car got dishonoured. However, the registration of the said car at the time it was purchased by the appellant was in the name of Ms. R...
Ram Chand @ Raju Vs State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
ORDERThe applicant Ram Chand was arrested on 1st April, 2010 and has been in Jail since then. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the MLC of the applicant. In the MLC four injuries suffered by the applicant have been mentioned. However, it is stated that the injuries are simple in nature. Learned APP has drawn my attention to the injuries suffered by the injured. Two of the injured persons were discharged immediately after medical aid was given to them at Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital on 17th October, 2009. One of the injured Mr. Anil Kumar, was also discharged after medical aid at Aruna Asif Ali Hospital but it appears that on 18th October, 2009 he was admitted in Dr. Ram Manohar Lahia Hospital, New Delhi with history of vomiting, etc. He remained in the said hospital till 21st October, 2009. Learned APP for the State has drawn my attention to the medical treatment papers procured from Dr.Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital which show that Mr. Anil Kumar was discharged on 21 ...
Mohd. Guffran Vs State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
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. This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of the appellate court dated 28th July, 2010 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 420/471 read with Section 467 IPC but reduced the sentence from three years awarded by the trial court to six months rigorous imprisonment and in addition directed payment of Rs.1,000/- each as fine for the two offences.2. The case against the petitioner was that a Maruti Car 800 bearing registration No.DL 6 CB 5991, Chasis No.2060674 and Engine No.3081056 was stolen from outside the House No.269, Hauz Rani, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. The petitioner was arrested in this case and he got recovered this car. It was found that the petitioner had, by creating false and forge documents mark Q-1 to Q-4 and Q...
Uoi and anr. Vs M.J.A.Khan and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
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. Union of India is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.11.2007 by which the penalty imposed vide order dated 11.12.2006 effecting 10% cut in pension of the respondent for a period of 5 years has been set aside holding that the misdemeanour proved against the respondent was not a grave misconduct, a condition precedent for pension to be cut as per the language of Rule 9 of the CCS Pension Rules 1972 which reads as under:-"9. Right of President to withhold or withdraw pension(1) The President reserves to himself the right of withholding a pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole period, and of ordering recovery from a pension or a gratui...
Employees State Insurance Corporation. Vs All India Employees State Co ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
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?. ORDER1. The All India Employees' State Insurance Corporation Employees' Federation i.e. respondent No.1 took up an issue pertaining to wages to be paid to its members holding posts in Group 'C' under the petitioner by and under OA No.981/1994 which was allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 17.3.1999; the consequence whereof was a higher wage to be paid to the employees of the petitioner in respect of whom directions were issued for higher wages to be paid.2. The petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.384/1999 in this Court challenging the judgment and order dated 17.3.1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. A Civil Miscellaneous Application was filed in the Writ Petition praying that pending hearing of the writ petition, the order passed by the Tribunal be s...
Sanjeev @ Vishal Vs State (Nct) of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ? ORDER.1. By way of this application, the appellant Sanjeev @ Vishal, who is confined in Central Jail No. 2, Tihar, New Delhi and who has been produced before us by virtue of production warrant, claims the benefit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). It is also prayed that the sentence dated 09.09.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge be quashed and the appellant be released as he was a juvenile at the time of the commission of the offence.2. The date of the offence in the present case is 16.04.2000. The appellant's date of birth is said to be less than 18 years of age on the date of the incident. If this is correct, he would be entitled to the benefit of the said Act particularly in view of the provisions of Section 7A read with ...
P.V.Khullar Vs Cbi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
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. While arguing this petition, the petitioner did not press the petition so far as charges under Section 420 IPC was concerned, but, submitted that no charge under Section 468 & 471 IPC could have been framed against the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that mere false statements made in a document does not amount to forgery of the document, therefore, charges of forgery under Section 468 & 471 IPC could not have been levied against the petitioner. He submitted that Sections 468 &471 IPC can be levied only where the petitioner had indulged into creating false documents or had forged some signatures. He submitted that in the present case, the petitioner had not forged any signatures and no document was sent to CFSL.2. A bare perusal of definition of forgery, as contained in Sections 463 & 464 of...
Neelam Sibal Vs State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
ORDERWhile granting interim protection vide order dated 4th June, 2010, it was directed that the petitioner, who is applicant herein, would co-operate with the investigation and join the same. On the next date of hearing, it was alleged by the State that the petitioner is not joining investigation. With the consent of the counsel for the petitioner, order dated 27th July, 2010 was passed that she should appear before the Investigating Officer on 6th August, 2010 at 12.00 Noon. The petitioner did not appear before the Investigating Officer on 6th August, 2010 and the present application has been filed on or about 10th August, 2010, stating, inter alia that the Investigating Officer should interrogate the petitioner at Mumbai. Reliance is placed on Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani and Another, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1025. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly pointed out that in a s...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »