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.
Shailesh Singh Vs Uoi and ors.
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. Shailesh Singh, an officer of the Indian Police Service belonging to Madhya Pradesh Cadre is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 17.3.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing OA No.2806/2009 filed by him in which he challenged the order dated 25.09.2009 prematurely repatriating him to his parent department. Undisputed position is that vide order dated 04.03.2008, the petitioner proceeded on deputation as a Zonal Director General of Foreign Trade at Mumbai. The tenure for which he had to remain on deputation was five years. Vide order dated 25.09.2009 he was repatriated to his parent organization. The order in question, i.e. order dated 25.09.2009 states no reason and alleges no misconduct against the petitioner. It simply states that Shri Shailesh Singh, Zonal Joint Director, Foreign...
Gurmeet Singh and ors. Vs Mcd and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
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 fourteen petitioners, claiming to be the residents of Block-8 & 8- C, W.E.A., Karol Bagh, Delhi, have preferred this petition impugning the decision of the respondents 1 & 2 MCD to construct an automated Stack Parking on Sri Kishan Dass Marg, opposite Block-8 and 8C adjacent to the boundary wall of the MCD school on Satbhrawan Marg, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The contractor to whom the work of construction of the Stack Parking has been awarded has been impleaded as respondent no.3. 2. The petitioners challenge the decision aforesaid of the respondents 1&2 MCD and seek to restrain the respondents no.3 from the proposed construction on the following grounds:(i) The provisions of Sections 298, 299, 305(3), 320 of the DMC Act are cited; it is urged that all the public streets and pavements vest in the MCD...
Mohd Zahid and Another Vs State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
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? YesORDER.1. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 22.4.1997 and Order on Sentence dated 23.4.1997, whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 302 and 324 of IPC read with Section 149 and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs 1000/- each or to undergo SI for three months each in default under Section 302/149 IPC, RI for one year each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- or to undergo SI for one month each in default under Section 324/149 IP, The appellants Mohd.Amil, Mohd.Fazil and Mohd.Sabir were also convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentence to undergo RI for one year each whereas appellant Ashiq was also convicted under Section 147 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for six months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused Mohd. Yameen and Zahir w...
Pawan Vs State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
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 ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18th February 1997 and Order on Sentence dated 19 th February 1997, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs1000/- or to undergo R.I. for six months in default.2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in the night intervening 26th/27th July 1994, deceased Shankar was sleeping in the street in the varanda of a medical store. The appellant, who came later after seeing the movie, also went to the street to sleep there and later committed murder of the deceased, giving a knife blow in his abdomen. Eye Witnesses account3. The case of the prosecution is based primarily on the ocular testimony of complainant Faudari Kumar and his roommates Chhotu, Ashok Kum...
Sanjay Passi Vs Iqbal Chand Khurana
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
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 the Digest? YesORDER.1. The Plaintiff has filed this Appeal containing the following Prayers:- In the facts and circumstances as narrated above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to(a) pass an order setting aside the impugned order and judgment dated 3.5.2010, except to the extent it directs Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to deposit a sum of Rs.14.5 crores, in view of the prayer of the Appellant for deposit of further amounts; and (b) pass any other/further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 [Appellant in FAO(OS) No.490- 92/2010], who were the owners of the suit property, have also assailed the said impugned Order dated 3.5.2010. The following Prayers have been made in this Appeal:-a) set aside the impugned ...
Sarita Parwanda Vs State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
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?ORDER1. By this order, I shall dispose of the above two bail applications, one preferred by husband under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail and the other preferred by wife under Section 439 Cr.P.C for regular bail. Both are involved in a case under Sections 420/468/448 read with Section 34 IPC.2. The focal point of entire alleged crime is a property bearing number A-8, Pocket Bail Appln. 1191 and 1196 of 2010 Page 1 Of 6 139, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi-110019, which has a basement and three floors. According to complainant vide sale agreement dated 1st April 1994 executed by husband and wife along with a possession letter, payment of consideration receipt, Will, GPA, SPA, affidavits and indemnity bonds the second floor of the said property was sold to him and payment was received by applicants by cheques of e...
Adil Singh Vs Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
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. The main question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the erstwhile owners of land, which was acquired for one particular public purpose but was not fully utilized for such purpose, can claim that the unused land be returned to them?2. In the present case, the petitioner was the 50% owner of the perpetual leasehold rights in plot No. 2, Block No. 125 also known as 8 Jantar Mantar Road, admeasuring approximately 10,800 sq. mts. By a notification dated 31.03.2000 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) it was notified that the aforesaid 10,800 sq. mts. of land compromised in the said property was likely to be required to be taken by the Government at public expense for the public purpose of "traffic integration and intake sha...
Sanjay Kumar Patel Vs Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
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 Yes in the Digest?ORDER.1. The petitioner having failed to appear on the scheduled date and time for counseling for the admission to the medical colleges to pursue MBBS course has filed this petition for direction to the respondent to allow the petitioner to participate in counseling in the 2nd round and which is stated to be underway.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he could not appear for the counseling on the scheduled date and time for the reason of misconception; it is contended that though the petitioner was to appear for counseling as per his counseling category rank, but remained under the impression that he was to appear for counseling as per his All India Rank. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a young boy of about 20 years of age and even if has committed a mistake, ought not t...
Rajkumar Indoria Vs Gnct of Delhi, New Delhi.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
ORDER1. Learned Additional Standing Counsel seeks and is granted permission to place on record status report. Copy of the status report was sent by the registered post to the counsel for the petitioner herein. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also given liberty to file reply to the status report, which is taken on record.2. The present writ petition was filed in 2007 seeking mandamus to the respondent Delhi Police to provide immediate police protection to the petitioner and his family members. It is alleged that petitioner and his family members had received constant life threats.3. In the latest status report, it is mentioned that in 2005, there was a quarrel between the petitioner and one Mr. Ram Chander Khanakwal and this had resulted in registration of cross FIRs. The petitioner and Mr. Ram Chander Khanakwal are/were running business of loading and unloading of parcels and are business rivals competing with each other. In the status report it is mentioned that the petitioner, ...
Rajkumar Indoria Vs Gover.Nct of Delhi, New Delhi.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
ORDER1.In view of the order passed in W.P.(Crl.) No.286/2007 no further orders or directions are required in the present contempt petition. During the pendency of the writ petition (Crl.) No.286/2007, this Court, vide order dated 15th March, 2007 and 17th April, 2007, had directed that the petitioner shall be provided with the same security, which was being provided to him hitherto before by the police station Nabi Karim. In the status report it is pointed out that after the order dated 15th March, 2007, a permanent police picket was set up adjacent to the house of the petitioner for security purpose. In addition, as and when requested, the local police had provided PSO without fail to the petitioner. After order dated 17th April, 2007, was passed by the Court, police officers of the police picket were directed to accompany the petitioner when he left the house and petitioner was not required to approach the police station for the said purpose. In the status report it is also mentioned...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »