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.
Uoi and ors. Vs Rajesh Kumar
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. (Oral)1. Our apology for deciding the four captioned writ petitions by a common judgment and order is that same counsel appear for the contesting parties and that the respondents in all the writ petitions who have succeeded before the Central Administrative Tribunal were some what similarly situate inasmuch as all of them were engaged as Mobile Booking Clerks under a scheme of the Railway Board promulgated in the year 1973; the object whereof was to give employment to the wards of railway employees by requiring them to render assistance at the railway stations when extra work was needed and help the regular staff in booking/reservations and passenger traffic. An assurance was held to them of being regularly absorbed after three years. The scheme was withdrawn on 17.11.1986 which was challenged before the Central...
Vijay Aggarwal 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 petitioner for quashing of FIR on the ground that no part of the offence allegedly committed, was within Delhi and registration of FIR in Delhi is a gross misuse of judicial process. The allegations made in the FIR were denied. It was stated that respondent/ complainant had earlier made a complaint before CAW Cell and this complaint was closed on the ground that none of the alleged acts of cruelty was committed in Delhi.2. Present FIR was registered against the petitioner at the directions of learned M.M. who entertained a complaint under section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. and passed an order dated 23rd November, 2009 directing registration of FIR against four of the accused persons stating that they appear to be guilty of offence under section 498A/406 IPC.3. The question of jurisdiction was co...
Classic Furniture Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dhl Lemiur Logistics ...
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.By present petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 16th April, 2010 passed by learned MM dismissing complaint of the petitioner holding that the petitioner has failed to show the commission of offence.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner filed a criminal complaint against the respondents alleging commission of offence under Section 420/407/120-B IPC. The petitioner, a manufacturer of wooden furniture had entered into a contract with Koti-Idea OY, Finland based company for supply of furniture. Koti-Idea OY appointed DHL Global Forwarding (Finland) as its Original Consolidator, Cargo and Purchase Order Manager for India. The intimation about this was sent to the petitioner and vide letter dated 22nd May, 2008 and the relevant portion of the letter is as under:"...
Sh. Prem Chand JaIn Vs Smt. Usha Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2010
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.Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 4th June, 2010, passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi.2. Brief facts of this case are that respondent herein, in the year 2004 filed a suit for recovery of possession as well mesne profit against present petitioner on the ground that petitioner is a tenant of respondent with respect of land measuring 1400 Sq. yds in property bearing no. 893, Ward No. 8, Mehrauli, New Delhi at monthly rent of Rs.2000/-.3. Petitioner in his written statement stated that he is a tenant in respect of premises admeasuring 2000 sq. yds. along with the superstructure existing thereon and not 1400 sq. yds. as alleged by respondent.4. During the course of trial, petitioner filed an application under Order 26 R...
Rakesh Dhawan Vs Commissioner of Police and ors.
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 was filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the Court should give directions to respondent to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner and his family members and that the Court should also direct the respondent to register an FIR against the accused persons named in the complaints dated 10th June, 2008 and 11th August, 2008 under Section 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 506 of IPC read with Section 120-B thereof and action should be taken against the police officials for not registering the FIR.2. When the petition was taken up on 23rd April, 2009, this Court gave directions in respect of prayer seeking protection and directed the respondent to ensure that no physical harm was caused to the petitioner. Regarding complaints, directions were given to the respondent to file Action Taken Report/Status ...
Smt. Leela Devi and ors. Vs Smt. Sarla Garg
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2010
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. Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 13.7.2010 of Senior Civil Judge, (West) Delhi, vide which application of petitioners under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short as Code) for recalling of order dated 12.5.2010, was dismissed.2. At the time of hearing, it was observed that petitioners have not placed on record complete list of dates of the trial court proceedings. Petitioners were given opportunity to file the same, however, their counsel stated that he does not want to file the same and shall argue the matter.3. It is argued by the learned counsel that on 23.4.2010 three witnesses of petitioners were present. However, the counsel was not available and due to this, these witnesses could not mark their presence.4. Other ple...
Late Sh. Ravi Arya Vs Ms. Meenakshi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
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 the present appeal filed under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2005 passed by the court of the Ld. Additional District Judge in Civil Suit No. 14/2003, thereby decreeing the suit in favour of the respondent.2. Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present appeal are that in the month of October 1999 the husband of the appellant Shri Ravi Arya (since deceased) approached the respondent for some financial requirements for his business purpose and since he was known to the respondent, she agreed to lend him a sum of Rs.2 lacs on the condition that he should return the same in the year 2000 at the earliest. In the repayment of the said loan amount the appellant issued a cheque bearing n...
Poly Saha Vs Uoi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
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. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of detention bearing F. No. 673/05/2010-CUS VIII dated 05.04.2010 passed against the detenu (Sanjay Saha @ Sona Bhai), who is the petitioners husband, under Section 3(1)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act).2. The detention order, which was made on 05.04.2010, was served on the detenu on 09.04.2010. Thereafter, the Advisory Board submitted its report after hearing the counsel for the detenu as well as the representatives of the Central Government. Subsequent thereto, by an order dated 14.06.2010 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, Government of India, the Central Government, in exercise of power c...
Arun @ Khadak Singh Vs State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
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. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10th September 2009 and Order on Sentence dated 15th September 2009, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs 20,000/- or to undergo S.I. for two months in default.2. On 13th February 2008, an information was received at Police Control Room that a male dead body was lying near E-14, Railway Line in Wazirpur Industrial Area. The information was conveyed to Police Station Ashok Vihar. On reaching the spot, police officers found the half naked dead body of a young man lying there. They also found a brick and a concrete stone stained with blood, lying near the dead body. On search of the pant of the deceased, it was found to contain a paper slip bearing the address of Updat...
Indian Exporters Grievance Forum and anr. Vs Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
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 Digest? Yes1. Petitioner No.1 is the Indian Exporters Grievance Forum, which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and having as its members professional exporting firms and Government recognized Export Houses, Trading Houses, Star Trading Houses and Super Star Trading Houses. It has, along with its authorised signatory Mr.Harish Kumar, Petitioner No.2, filed this petition seeking a declaration that para 3.2.5 of the Handbook of Procedure (HBP) and the Public Notice dated 21st June 2007 issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government of India are ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India and/or Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 (FTDR Act), the provisions...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »