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.
Vinay Rai Vs Anil Rai
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
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? Yes ORDER.1. This Appeal assails the Order dated 23.10.2008, dismissing the Defendants application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Order XII Rule 6 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC for short). It is undeniably evident that Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC has no role to play in the present controversy. The application mentions and relies on the details set out in the Written Statement. Succinctly stated, the application raised four grounds for the rejection of the Plaint by the learned Single Judge. The first argument was that no concluded contract had concretized between the parties and what was reduced to writing was merely a Wish List. Secondly, it was averred that the Suit was barred by the principle of prescription. Thirdly, it was pleaded that the Suit had not been correctly valued f...
Kumari Sehej Gupta and anr. Vs Shri M.L. Gupta and ors.
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. (Under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2)1. The plaintiffs seek a decree of prohibitory injunction against the defendants restraining them from transferring, alienating, creating third party interest and selling the following properties (hereafter "the suit properties"):a) M-24, Greater Kailash-II Market, New Delhi.b) Ground Floor, Chiranjeev Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi.c) 215, Maker Chamber, Mumbai.d) Shop No. 2, Rokadia Landmark Co., O.P. HSG, Society Ltd., Mumbai. e) Nehru Apartments, Opp. C.R. Park, New Delhi.f) A-8, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi.g) M-225 Greater Kailash II, New Delhi.2. The first plaintiff is the minor daughter of the third defendant. She sues through her mother Smt. Sumeet Gupta the second plaintiff. The latter is the divorced wife of the third defendant, and her (plaintiffs) natural g...
Delhi Jal Board. Vs Sh.Devender Singh.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
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 petitioner for setting aside order dated 30th January, 2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi.2. Vide impugned order, learned trial court dismissed the application of petitioner under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short as Code), for review of order dated 19.9.2009.3. Respondent herein, had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5,81,655/- against petitioner in year 2008, which is pending in the trial court.4. On 19.9.2009 the matter was listed before the trial court for filing of replication, admission/denial of documents and for settlement of issues. No authorized representative of the petitioner was present in the Court on that day for admission/denial of the documents filed by...
Shri Shyam Babu Vs Govt. of Nct of Delhi.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NoORDER.CM No.11830/2010 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM No.11829/2010 (Delay) For the reasons stated in the Application the delay of 78 days in filing the Review Petition is condoned. Application is allowed. Review Petition No. 275/20101. The Appeal filed by the Petitioner was disposed of vide order dated 14th January, 2010 passed by this Court with the directions to the Respondent to make payment of `.1 lakh to the Petitioner as compensation in lieu of reinstatement within six weeks failing which the amount would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The Petitioner was working as Beldar (Daily Wager) with Respondent sometime since October, 1982 and on 12th March, 1984 he made an Application to the Respondents seeking regularization and a regular pay scale. While the matter was sti...
Govt of Nct of Delhi and anr. Vs RobIn Singh.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
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. Pendency of a criminal proceeding or for that matter a conviction by a competent court of law may justify eyebrows being raised but do they justify the shutting of ones eyes? Is the question which we need to decide in the instant writ petition.2. Would the pendency of a criminal proceeding or a conviction or for that matter a criminal proceeding which has already terminated either in conviction or an acquittal be a justified ground to dismiss a Government servant from service or deny entry into Government service is a facet of the question which we need to answer. It may be highlighted that in the instant case the respondent, when aged 19 years, was accused of committing offences punishable under Section 323/504/506 IPC and was acquitted. This is the solitary brush he had with penal law and that too at the you...
M/S. Laxmi Cable Co. and anr. Vs the State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
1. Whether 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) ORDER.1.The petitioners having failed in the appeals filed by them against their convictions and punishments awarded to them by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in two separate complaint cases have now approached this Court by filing this petition under Section 397 read with Sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. The relevant facts may, at the outset, be noticed. Petitioner no.1 is a partnership firm and petitioner no.2 is one of its partners. The respondent no.2 herein, Rajesh Jain, had filed two criminal complaints (being complaint cases no.76/2006 & 77/2006) against the petitioners for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the allegations that he had ...
Harcharan Singh Hazooria Vs Kulwant Singh Hazooria and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
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? Yes ORDER.1. The Appellant/Plaintiff has filed a Suit for Partition, Declaration and Injunction in which an interim Order directing parties to maintain status quo has been passed. The Plaintiff is in possession of one bedroom on the Second Floor of the suit property, that is, 60, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi. The suit property is extremely valuable as the construction is on a large plot of land admeasuring 790 square yards comprising Ground Floor, First Floor, Second Floor and Terrace thereon. Defendant Nos. 1 and 3, who are the brother and sister-in-law of the Plaintiff, are in possession thereof except for the one room occupied by the Appellant. The sister of the Appellant is supporting the Appellant. It is evident that the interim Order, while avowedly protecting the possession of the Plaintiff/App...
Sh. Harinder Singh Vs Sh. Kuldeep Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
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? Yes ORDER.1.By way of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged order dated 12th May, 2010 passed by Additional District Judge Delhi, vide which application of petitioner filed under Order 9 Rule 7 read with section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short as Code) was dismissed with costs of Rs.4,000/-.2. Respondent herein, filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,11,818/- along with interest against the petitioner and respondent no.2. As per list of dates, counsel for petitioner who had been appearing and contesting the case on behalf of petitioner, did not appear in the matter on 21st August, 2007 and as such case was adjourned to 27th September, 2007, on which date again petitioner counsel did not appear. On the adjourned date, i.e. 30th October, 2007, court...
State Vs Sh.Prem Singh @ Kale and Dwarka Nath @ Rakesh.
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.This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 109 days in filing the leave to appeal.For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the leave to appeal is condoned and the application is allowed. 1. The petition is against the order dated 18th August, 2009 acquitting Sh.Prem Singh and Sh.Dwarka Nath of charges under Sections 302/ 201/ 394/ 120 B/ 397/ 411/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 27/54/59 of the Arms Act by the Sessions Judge in SC no. 20 of 2008 in FIR No. 306 of 2004 Police Station Sultan Puri.2. Brief facts to comprehend the case are that on 23rd March, 2004 pursuant to a call made at about 7.15 a.m, a dead body lying in a vacant plot in front of Karan Public School, Aman Vihar, Sultan Puri, Delhi was recovered, which was later on identified to be of on...
Bhavraj Financial Services. Vs State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
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. This petition has been filed for quashing of F.I.R. No.368 of 2004 under Sections 406/420 IPC registered at Police Station Connaught Place. The petitioner submits that at the time of grant of bail, he had deposited a sum of ` 1,45,000/- in the court. He wants to compromise the matter with the complainants. He states that this amount which he had deposited with the court be permitted to be released in favour of the complainants and the F.I.R. be quashed.2. The offences under Sections 406/420 IPC are compoundable offences with permission of the court. In case the complainants intend to compromise with him, he should enter into a written compromise with the complainants and make an appropriate application with the court of Metropolitan Magistrate where the matter is pending and pray for recording the compromise. It is directed...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »