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.
Sh. Lal Pratap Singh Vs Sh. Kanwar Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
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.This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner praying to set aside orders dated 30.11.2009 & 21.1.2010, passed by Commercial Civil Judge, Delhi.2. Brief facts of this case are that, petitioner purchased the suit property from respondent No.1 on the basis of Registered General Power of Attorney and Agreement to Sell, after paying entire sale consideration to him. Since then, petitioner is in possession.3. In 2009, some anti-social elements wanted to dispossess the petitioner from the premises, on the basis of false documents executed by respondent No.1, in favour of respondent No.2. Petitioner lodged an FIR. When respondents did not succeed in their illegal designs, they filed civil suit on the basis of forged documents.4. It is contended by learned cou...
Delhi Technological University Vs Archana Rani.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
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 present decision disposes of the above captioned writ petitions as also CM No.6329/2010 filed in W.P.(C) No.892/2010.2. The two civil miscellaneous applications pray that the Joint Registrar (Administration) Cum Administrative Officer of the first petitioner be proceeded against for having committed perjury. The averments on which it is stated that action for perjury be initiated is that he falsely filed an affidavit disclosing that at the selection committee meeting held on 10.9.2003 the candidature of the respondents and other persons was considered as per the applicable guidelines notified in the year 2003, whereas the fact was that the Selection Committee applied the new guidelines notified on 7.3.2008.3. We shall be dealing with the two applications at the end of our decision and before that we shall ...
University of Delhi Vs Delhi University Teachers Association and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers Yes. may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes.3. Whether the judgment should be Yes. reported in the Digest?ORDER. (OPEN COURT)1. The Delhi University has approached this Court claiming a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants and their members, representatives etc., to restrain them from holding demonstrations, dharnas, agitations, or adopting any obstructive measures, directly or indirectly, which would prevent ingress and egress of the officers of the University. The plaintiff also seeks a mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to submit Internal Assessment Marks of students of all colleges and Departments under the University in accordance with the existing norms and regulations.2. The plaintiff University contends that pursuant to the recommendations of the University Grants Commission (UGC), it decided to introduce Semester System in the Undergraduate Science courses, commencing i...
Ravinder Kumar Makkar and anr. Vs M.C.D. and anr.
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 present writ petition entails adjudication of, whether the Delhi Building Bye-Laws, 1983 as modified from time to time, allow/permit construction of an open staircase in the front setback of a residential house.2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 5th December, 2005 of the Asstt. Engineer of the MCD, the order dated 22nd February, 2007 of the Appellate Tribunal, MCD and the order dated 24th October, 2007 of the Lt. Governor, Delhi all holding the staircase to be illegal and not capable of compounding and liable to be demolished.3. Though the respondent no.1 MCD was stirred into taking action for demolition of the said open staircase in the front setback of house no. H-2, Kailash Colony, New Delhi by the respondent no.2 but the facts concerning dispute between petitioner & respond...
Rattan Lal Gupta Vs Uoi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
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 Digest? YesORDER.Petitioner retired as a Civilian Staff Officer from the Ministry of Defence, Central Government and is getting a regular pension. Being a retired Central Government employee, the petitioner is a life beneficiary of the Central Government Health Services (CGHS) Scheme. A copy of the CGHS card issued in favour of the petitioner is annexed with the petition. It is stated that on 29.08.2003, the Director (CGHS) had granted permission to the petitioner for implantation of the Pacemaker (dual chamber) through Apollo Hospital, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi. The petitioner was admitted in the said Hospital on 30.08.2003 and the Pacemaker (dual chamber) was implanted on the same day. The petitioner was discharged on 02.09.2003. At the time of discharge from the hospital, the petitioner was handed over a bill amounting t...
Govt of Nct of Delhi and ors Through Commissioner Trade and Taxes. Vs ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2010
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be Yes allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Yes the Digest?ORDER.1. We preface our decision by noting the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners, being that so reprehensible is the conduct of the respondents, who have been caught literally with their pants down of accepting bribe that this Court ought to extend no benefit to the respondents. It was urged that law has to be interpreted, in the instant case, keeping in view the grave misdemeanour of the respondents. In other words, the counsel for the petitioners urged that the respondents are not entitled to any hearing. The argument is emotional and is rejected at the outset for the reason a system governed by the rule of law requires dispute resolution as per law. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners can be best repelled by noting a dialogue between Sir Thomas More on the one side an...
Amit Sharma Vs State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2010
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 under Section 482 Cr.P.C read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.170 dated 15th August, 2008 registered at Police Station Kirti Nagar, West Delhi District, New Delhi.2. The present FIR was registered at the behest of Smt. Kavita Gupta who a resident of USA and had come to Delhi perhaps only for registration of this FIR. A perusal of FIR reveals that Smt. Kavita Gupta was living in USA since 1993. She obtained Master Degree in Electrical Engineering from Arizona State, USA in 1995 and subsequently got employed in USA and started working there and living there. She came to India at Panchkula, Haryana for the purpose of marriage and was married to Shri Amit Sharma on 10th January 2000 at Panchkula. After this marriage, he...
Union of India and ors. Vs Sumant Kumar Tyagi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2010
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. We must express our pain and anguish at the manner in which the impugned order dated 4.11.2009 has been written.2. A perusal of the order shows that the learned members of the Tribunal who have authored the impugned decision have not appreciated the facts in the correct perspective and have totally misunderstood the law on the subject.3. Let us first note the relevant facts.4. The respondent joined service as a Lower Division Clerk under the Ministry of Finance (Defence) in the Defence Accounts department on 27.5.1964. Transferred from Murad nagar to Avadi on 14.11.1980, the respondent did not join and made a representation praying that the order transferring him to Avadi be recalled. His request was rejected. He did not join duty. He continued to remain absent till 25.3.1983, when a charge-sheet was issued to...
Harjit Kaur Dhingra Vs Pan American World Airways and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2010
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 the Digest?ORDER. (ORAL)1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs.7,42,005/- for value of goods, Freight Charges, Post Shipment Benefits, interest at the rate of 18.5% from 21st October, 1990 till 7th September, 1992 and for loss of profit and business against the Defendants. The suit was initially filed against Pan American World Airways, Defendant no.1. Later on Defendant no.2 Delta Airways was impleaded as party to the suit pursuant to the application for amendment filed by the plaintiff which was allowed by order dated 2nd November, 1994. The defendant no.1 had already proceeded ex-parte and the Court had allowed the application of amendment of the plaintiff being IA no. 3457 of 1992 without notice to the defendant no.2 and without observing that the defendant no.2 is deemed to be sued from the date of instituti...
Rajesh Puri and ors. Vs State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2010
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 by the petitioners for quashing of FIR registered against the petitioners under Section 448, 452 read with Section 34 of IPC.2. It is undisputed fact that the petitioners are Directors of Company M/s. Darintech Constructions Pvt. Limited and this company is co owner of 50 per cent of the property bearing No. B-7/20, Safdarjung Enclave Extension, New Delhi. It is also not disputed that the property has not been divided between the complainant and the petitioners and the petitioners' company i.e. M/s. Darintech Constructions Pvt. Limited are owner of undivided 50% share in the property. There is some construction over the property and it is settled law that anything embedded in the immovable property is part of the property and the 50% construction existing over the property thus also belongs t...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »