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.
Mohd. Jalil Alias Kala Vs State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
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 29th March, 1997 and Order on Sentence dated 27th March, 1997, whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 34 thereof, and were sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each or to undergo RI for 6 months each in default.2. The case of the prosecution is that at about 10.30 PM on 15.05.1990, the complainant Mukesh Kumar, PW-2 Ajay Kumar and deceased Ravinder were returning from Block No. 27 of Trilokpuri after purchasing sweets. When they were a little away from the shop of Kaddus, the appellants Mohd. Jalil alias Kale and Mohd Rizwan met them. On seeing deceased Ravinder, Kale told Mohd Rizwan that he was their old enemy, who had stabbed him five six months ago, and therefore...
Prominent Hotels Ltd. Vs the New Delhi Municipal Council
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
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. Recently Supreme Court observed that "wheels of justice are moving too slowly." Present petition is also a classic example of the above observations. After 15 years of long journey when a civil suit is going to reach its ultimate destination, the petitioner is not keen to end the journey. Now petitioner wants to change the track and is keen to get new parties impleaded to this litigation against whom earlier no relief was sought during the entire period of 15 years. It would be pertinent to point out that two deadlines given by this Court to the trial court to decide the matter in a time bound frame, have already expired. This is how this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order, dated 24th July, 2010, passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi, vide which...
Rajinder Kumar Sharma and anr. Vs Lt. Governor and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
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. Petitioners are the bonafide members of respondent no.5, a Cooperative Bank duly registered with respondent no.3 i.e., Registrar, Cooperative Societies under the provisions of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act). The said Bank is governed by the aforesaid Act and the Rules framed there under i.e., Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Respondent no.5 is registered with respondent no.3 in the name and style of Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank Limited. On 8th July, 2008, the Returning Officer i.e., respondent no.4 appointed by Government of NCT of Delhi issued an agenda notice and election programe dated 19th August, 2008 for holding the election of Board of Directors of respondent no.5/Bank. The agenda notice contained a clau...
Vhcpl-adcc Pingalai Infrastrcutres Pvt Ltd and anr. Vs Union of India ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
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 the Digest? Yes1. "A mans greed is like a snake that wants to swallow an elephant". - a Chinsese proverb which completely sums up the case in hand. The petitioner, who was awarded a contract for the construction and operation of a project involving a major bridge over the Pingalai river with approaches covering a total stretch of 2.2 km, claims that the Concession Agreement entered into by him in 2004 tantamounts to his having a preferential right of first refusal for award of the contract relating to the project for the four laning of a 66.73 Kms stretch of National Highway-6, being its Talegaon-Amravati KM 100 to KM 166.725 section, in the State of Maharashtra, without participation in the bidding process and completely unmindful of the public interest involved in the matter.2. The record of the present case discloses, ...
Pallavi Roy Vs State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
ORDER1.Respondent No.2 was granted bail in FIR No.261/2007 under Sections 307/506 Indian Penal Code vide order dated 9th May, 2007. The petitioner thereafter moved an application for cancellation of bail, which was rejected vide order dated 21st May, 2007. This order records that the Investigating Officer had submitted that both parties were creating disturbance and taking law into their hands as a result of which proceedings under Sections 107/150 and 151 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had been filed against both the parties.2. The present petition was filed on or about 31st May, 2007 and has remained pending since then. Delhi Police has filed status report in response to this petition. In the said status report it is pointed out that FIR No.313/2007 was registered on the directions made by the Metropolitan Magistrate on the basis of a private complaint, which was made by Ms. Usha Gupta wife of the respondent No.2. In the said case, charge sheet has been filed against eleven persons...
Sandeep Chaudhary and anr. Vs Government of Nct of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
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. 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.271/2004, lodged by respondent No.2/complainant against the petitioners under Sections 452/324 read with Section 34 IPC, with Police Station: Farsh Bazar.2. It is the case of the respondent No.2/complainant that on 01.08.2004, 4-5 persons were drinking, smoking and creating a ruckus outside his house to which, he objected, whereupon, the said persons abused respondent No.2/complainant and trespassed into his house, threatened him and gave him blows. As a result of the complaint, the police carried out the investigation pursuant to which, a charge-sheet was filed in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, which is pending at the stage of recording of evide...
Mohd. Rizwan Vs State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
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 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29th March, 1997 and Order on Sentence dated 27th March, 1997, whereby the appellants were convicted under Section of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 34 thereof, and were sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each or to undergo RI for 6 months each in default.2. The case of the prosecution is that at about 10.30 PM on 15.05.1990, the complainant Mukesh Kumar, PW-2 Ajay Kumar and deceased Ravinder were returning from Block No. 27 of Trilokpuri after purchasing sweets. When they were a little away from the shop of Kaddus, the appellants Mohd. Jalil alias Kale and Mohd Rizwan met them. On seeing deceased Ravinder, Kale told Mohd Rizwan that he was their old enemy, who had stabbed him five six months ago, and therefore should be...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Madhu Bhushan Anand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
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. With the promulgation of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957 and the Constitution of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, municipal functions in Delhi except NDMC area and the area falling under the jurisdiction of the Cantonment Board were vested in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, which included the function of providing public transport in the city of Delhi. As a separate wing of the Corporation, the Delhi Transport Undertaking was constituted with a separate budget and separate staff. As the city of Delhi grew, it was thought advisable to corporatize public transport in Delhi and thus the Delhi Transport Corporation was formed as a body corporate and it took over the functioning of the Delhi Transport Undertaking. The said Corporation had in place a Contributory Provident Fund Scheme for its employe...
Sudhir Kapur and ors. Vs State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
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. Present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 540/07, registered against the petitioner at P.S. Defence Colony, under Section 498- A/406/34 IPC .2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent had taken place on 4th March, 1984. The parties started living separate from each other in 1992. The petitioner filed a divorce petition against the respondent in 1996. The present FIR was lodged against the petitioner by wife under Section 498A/406 IPC after about 15 years of living separate from her husband and after about 11 years of filing the divorce petition.3. It is argued by counsel for the respondent/wife that offence under Section 406 IPC was also involved and the dowry articles etc. of the wife were not given back. This averment has no substance. The wife had all opportunities right from 1992 onwards to...
Alok Kumar Vs State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
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 for quashing of FIR No. 426/2007 PS IGI Airport registered against the petitioner under Section 354/506 IPC.2. The complainant (respondent no.2 herein) got this FIR registered stating therein that she was in 'live-in relationship' with the petitioner for more than 05 years and was involved with him physically, emotionally and mentally. The petitioner had promised to marry her as soon as possible. Few days back (from date of registration of FIR) she learnt that petitioner was getting married to someone else, so she came to IGI airport to remind him of his promises and refresh memories (as he was leaving India). The petitioner told her to solve the matter and took her to visitors' lounge where she started arguing with her. In the meantime he went to washroom and gave his pass...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »