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.
Master Mohd Fazil Vs Gnct of Delhi and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
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 reported Yes in the Digest?ORDER.1. These writ petitions, have been preferred complaining that the petitioner/petitioners in each of the writ petitions has/have approached the School impleaded as respondent no.2 in each of the writ petitions, for admission but has/have been denied admission. All the said Schools are recognized schools within the meaning of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and are Government Schools. In some of the cases, it is stated that the Principal/Head of the school has refused admission inspite of the recommendation of the respondent no.1 Directorate of Education. Admission is sought in various classes, all in or under Class VIII, except four petitioners who are seeking admission in Class IX. While in some cases admission is sought by transfer from schools outside Delhi, in other on account of having left e...
Smt. Asha Kapoor Vs Shri Hari Om Sharda
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
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 against impugned judgment dated 6th April, 2010, passed by Additional Rent Control Tribunal (for short as Tribunal) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi allowing the eviction petition of the landlord-respondent herein, under Section 14 (1) (h) of Delhi Control Act 1958 (for short as Act). Petitioner has also prayed to confirm the judgment dated 30th March, 2009 passed by Additional Rent Controller (for short as Controller) Delhi, vide which eviction petition of the respondent, under Section 14 (1) (h) of the Act was dismissed.2. Brief facts are that, respondent filed an Eviction Petition under Section 14 (1) (a), (j) and (h) of the Act against petitioner, inter alia on the allegations that he is landlord/owner of property bearing no. 1...
T.C.Kaushik Vs Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
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. In the year 1973 the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Central Intelligence Officer Grade II in the Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs and posted at Delhi. In the year 1996 he was transferred from Delhi to Amritsar. The petitioner joined duty at Amritsar on 11.4.1996 and the very next day i.e. on 12.4.1996 he proceeded on casual leave till 20.4.1996. Needless to state the petitioner was to report for duty on 21.4.1996. He failed to do so.2. On 6.5.1996 he sent a medical certificate to his reporting officer at Amritsar, to the effect that he was medically unfit and hence be granted leave. The certificate was obtained from a private Physician, Dr.Vijay Sharma having his clinic at A-70, Budh Nagar, Inderpuri, New Delhi-12. It was mentioned in the certificate that the petitioner was a chronic patien...
Ashok Kumar Mittal and ors. Vs Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes.1. Present Letters Patent appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 23rd April, 2010 whereby a learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the appellants' writ petition being W.P.(C) 1216/2010 with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by each of the appellants to Delhi Development Authority within ten weeks.2. Mr. Anil K. Agarwal, learned counsel for appellants contended that around 1971-1972, the appellants had purchased properties from various Bhoomidars by way of registered sale deeds. He further stated that appellants as well as other owners of the land in dispute had through their association, Ashok Nagar Welfare Association, applied for mutation of the said land in revenue record, but the same was not carried out. Mr. Aggarwal stated that around 1984, the appellants came to...
Pramod Bhatia and ors. Vs State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
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. (Oral)1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.5/2008, lodged by respondent No.2, the wife of petitioner No.1 and daughter-in-law of petitioner No.2 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, registered with Police Station: Hari Nagar.2. It is stated in the petition that the marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnised on 02.04.2001. There is no child from out of the wedlock. Due to irreconcilable differences, the parties are living separately since 03.08.2007. Initially, petitioner No.1 filed a petition under Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act in September, 2007. However, subsequently the parties arrived at a settlement in terms of which they filed a joint petition for seeking divorce by mutual consent...
M.K. Tyagi Vs Mr. K.L. Ahuja and anr.
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? Yes1. The Petitioner, a whistle blower who exposed the acts of corruption of his superior officer, is aggrieved by the unreasonable delay on the part of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) in providing him relevant information pursuant to an application made under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act).2. The background to the present petition is that the Petitioner while working as the Chief Sales Manager in the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) made a complaint on 8th December 1999 against the corrupt practices of the General Manager who was his superior. The Petitioner alleges that the General Manager by way of reprisal got the Petitioner transferred from Mumbai to Bangalore on 9th May 2000 as Chief Manager (LNG Marketing). On 15th May 2000, the Petitioner wrote to the CVC about the above development ...
Syed Nusrat Ali Vs State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
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. By way of present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C the petitioner has prayed for quashing of an order dated 20th July, 2009 passed by Special Judge, NDPS, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. Learned Special Judge, NDPS, vide the impugned order partly allowed the Crl. Revision and partly set aside the order dated 27 th April, 2009 passed by learned ACMM and disposed of the revision petition.2. Brief facts relevant for deciding this petition are that learned ACMM vide order dated 27th April, 2009, on an application made by petitioner no.1 Syed Nusrat Ali passed an order directing ACP Mr. Amit Roy and the Investigating Officer to appear in person and to show cause as to why proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act and for other offences be not initiated against both of them. Against this order of learned ACMM, th...
NaseeruddIn Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and anr.
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. This order shall dispose of a batch of six writ petitions bearing Nos. W.P.(C) 4152/2007, 4153/2007, 4160/2007, 4163/2007, 4164/2007 & 4166/2007.2. In these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek quashing of the common order dated 9.5.2007 passed by the learned ADJ in PPA No. 87/2005 in exercise of appellate jurisdiction conferred under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1971. The petitioners also seek quashing of the common eviction order dated 25th April, 2005 passed by the learned Estate Officer in respect of the premises under the occupation of the present petitioners.3. Brief facts relevant for deciding the present petitions are that in 1947 the petitioners were allotted their respective shops on rent by the N...
Sandeep Dabas Vs State
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 judgment should be reported in Digest? ORDER1. This petition under Section 439 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner/accused to grant regular bail under FIR No.239 under Sections 420/468/471/120-B IPC dated 21st September 2009 registered with Police Station Nihal Vihar, Delhi.2. The allegations made by the complainant in the FIR are that one Shri Kamal Sharma who is working as a property dealer in the area had approached the complainant on 25th June, 2009 and informed about availability of a property being sold by the owner as a distress sale. The complainant along with the said Kamal Sharma visited the property. One Sunil Rana met them at the property who introduced himself as a property dealer. Another person was introduced to her as a tenant in the said property and residing in the flat. He confirmed that the property was owned by Mr...
Sep. Surender Singh Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
1. Present petition received on transfer from Honble Delhi High Court after formation of this Tribunal. 2. Petitioner by this petition has prayed that a writ of mandamus may be issued directing reinstatement of the petitioner in service with full consequential benefits as if the petitioner was in service or alternatively pay full pay till the age of superannuation along with 100% disability pension, which ever is more beneficial to the petitioner. 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was selected through open competition to join the Army and after due selection he joined the Army on 19.10.2001. He was allotted to join JAT Regiment. Petitioner after availing his leave was going to join his duty at his battalion in army bus which was blasted on 09.10.2004 at 1115 hours at Srinagar Uri while crossing General Area at Narbal, A Maruti Car belonging to terrorists came from the opposite direction laden with explosives and a Gas Cylinder rammed into the Army Bus BA No. 03P-015622E. T...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »