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.
BhagwanA.Vs. Kanwal Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2010
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 the Digest? YesORDER1. This appeal has impugned the judgment dated 5.1.1983 passed by the first appellate court which had reversed the judgment of the trial judge dated 5.7.1980. The trial judge had decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The first appellate court had set aside this decree; suit of the plaintiff stood dismissed.2. Appellant before this court is the plaintiff. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows:(i) Plainitiff/appellant had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property. The suit property comprised of(a) 3 bighas 14 biswas land in Khasra no.43/13 min. (b) 1 bigha 2 biswas land in Khasra no.43/13 min. (c) 4 bighas 16 biswas land in Khasra no.43/18 and RSA No.50/1983 Page 1 of 8 (d) 4 bighas 16 biswas land in Kh...
Diesel Service Center.Vs. Bharat Petrolium.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2010
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No. 1. Present LPA has been filed challenging the judgment dated 22 nd July, 2010 passed in W.P.(C) Nos. 14824-26/2006 whereby the learned Single Judge has held that the decision of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (for short "BPCL") terminating the Appellants dealership on account of 14th July, 2005 incident did not suffer from any legal infirmity.2. The facts of this case are that the Appellant-firm and the LPA 580/2010 Page 1 of 6 Respondent-BPCL entered into an agreement in 1978 whereby licence was granted to the Appellant to operate a retail outlet (RO) of the BPCL for dispensing both high speed diesel (HSD) and motor spirit (MS). It is stated that on 14th July, 2005, a vigilance team of BPCL visited the RO for inspection. The team comprised three senior officials of the BPCL, i.e., Mr J.P. Meena (Dy...
Piramal Healthcare Limited, Vs. DiasorIn S.P.A.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2010
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment Yes2. To be referred to Reporters or not Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest Yes1. I may indicate by way of a prefatory note to the present judgment that while arguments in respect of plaintiffs two applications under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 were being heard, one of the issues which arose for consideration was: as to whether this Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Arguments in regard to the plaintiffs interlocutory applications were heard on 01st June, 2010. The matter was part heard. It was posted for hearing on 02nd June, 2010. On the said date, the defendant formerly filed an application bearing IA No.7759/2010 under Order XIV Sub Rule 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC). As a measure of abundant caution, the court treated the issue pertaining to jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. Since arguments were already bei...
Uoi Vs Ram Pal Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2010
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. Central Government floated a scheme in the year 1975, known as Integrated Child Development Scheme' (hereinafter referred to as ICDS). The object of the Scheme was integrated delivery of certain services such as supplementary nutrition, immunization, health check-up, referral service, non- formal education to pre-school children, pregnant and lactating women. The Scheme aimed to improve the health and nutritional status of children and women and to reduce the incidence of school drop outs and to promote the physical and social development and welfare of the child. The Scheme was funded by the Central Government and different voluntary organizations and local bodies were entrusted with the work of implementing the Scheme.2. In or around the year 1976, Ministry of Education and Social Welfare, Government of Ind...
Sushil Kumar Sharma .Vs. State .
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
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?ORDER1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for quashing of the order dated 1.6.2010 passed by the Deputy Secretary: Home(General), Government of NCT of Delhi, rejecting the request of the petitioner for parole for a period of three months on the ground of adverse police report and possibility of committing similar type of offence.2. The nominal roll dated 17.7.2010 forwarded by the Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail shows that the petitioner has been awarded death sentence under Sections 302/201/34 IPC and the period of sentence undergone by him as on 12.7.2010, is 14 years 11 months and 15 days.3. Counsel for the petitioner states that the need for the petitioner to seek parole has arisen on account of his mother's deteriorating health for which she is required to undergo cert...
Rohit Kumar Vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
1. Whether reporters of the local papers 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? Yes ORDER.1.In this intra-Court appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, the legal substantiality and defensibility of the order dated 7th July, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 11522/2009 is called in question.2. The facts, as have been uncurtained, are that the appellant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to produce the record of the evaluators and all answer scripts of the 13 toppers of the Pre- Exam/Part-I of the impugned primary teacher examination and 10 copies of the toppers of the Main Exam/Part-II of the impugned primary teacher examination and to set an enquiry against the respondent to chec...
Kerala State Mktg.Fed.Ltd. Vs Union of IndiA.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers YES may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? YES3. Whether the judgment should be YES reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. In this suit, a decree for declaration that no binding contract existed between the parties for supply of 5000 MT of Gramwhole and permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from proceeding with the risk purchase tender enquiry dated 28.10.1988; and an order permitting the plaintiff to institute a recovery suit against the defendants, are sought.2. The plaintiff responded to a tender enquiry dated 29.01.1988 issued by the defendant. The conditions for supply of the goods, i.e. 5000 MT Gram whole were outlined in the tender enquiry form, produced in the trial and marked as Ex.P-1. The relevant condition, which is subject matter of the controversy in this suit, i.e. clause-4 (a) reads as follows: - "4. PRICE: - (a) The price shall be quoted per quintal inclusive of the cost of Gramwhole, the cost...
Skol Breweries Vs Unisafe Technologies.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
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.1. The plaintiff, in this suit, seeks the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant alleging infringement, passing off and unfair competition in respect of its trade mark, "KNOCK OUT". Other consequential reliefs are also claimed.2. The suit avers that the plaintiff is proprietor of the brand, KNOCK OUT for beer by virtue of an assignment deed dated 27.05.2005 executed in its favour by MBL Investments Ltd, (which was later amalgamated with the plaintiff). It is stated that the said brand has been in existence for over two decades and enjoys large and established reputation both in the domestic, as well as international markets. The plaintiff, inter alia, is engaged in the business of brewing, distilling and marketing beer under various trademarks (Haywards 2000, Haywards 5000, Royal Chal...
State (Gnct) of Delhi Vs Jaspreet Singh.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO in the Digest?ORDER.1.This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the leave petition. For the reasons stated in the application delay is condoned. This is a petition under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the State against the judgment dated 25th August, 2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge acquitting the respondent of the charges under Section 302 of Indian Penal code in FIR No. 381/2003, PS Hari Nagar acquitting him of the charge of killing his father Sh.Joginder Singh.2.The case of the petitioner is that on 26th August, 2003, in House No. K-44A, First Floor, Fateh Nagar, the dead body of Sh. Joginder Singh, Son of late Sh. Mangal Singh was found on a double bed with injuries on the right side of the head. The walls and the almirah in the room had blood stains. No chance prints were foun...
Rattan Pal Vs State of Nct of Delhi.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
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 petitioner has filed the present petition through jail, praying inter alia for quashing of the order dated 28.01.2010 by which, his application for grant of parole was rejected, and seeking his release for a period of three months on parole to re-establish social ties with his family and make financial arrangements for them. While passing the impugned order, the respondent/State rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of parole on the ground that there was an adverse police report stating that the family of the victim and the people in the vicinity were shocked to hear that the petitioner was trying to come out of jail on parole and that the family of the victim was still in mental shock and the victim was trying to cope with frustration and stigma.2. Notice was issued on the present ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »