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.
Vikas @ Rohit Vs the State of Nct Delhi.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
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 ?ORDER1. The appellant-Parvinder has been convicted under Section 392 read with Section 397 of the Indian penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to IPC, for short) and has been sentenced with rigorous imprisonment of seven years and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default undergo further rigorous imprisonment of three months. The appellant-Vikas has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3 1/2 years and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 392 IPC.2. On 3rd November, 2003, Mr. Mahesh Kant Jha, who was working as a security guard at Najafgarh Road was returning to his house at about 9 p.m.via railway track near West Patel Nagar Railway Station along with his nephew Mr. Hem Kant Jha. They stopped near the railway station track as a goods...
Focus Brands Trading (India) Pvt Ltd and anr. Vs Campari International ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
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 Yes in the Digest ?ORDER. (under Section 45 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act by deft.nos.1 & 2)1. By this common order, I propose to dispose of the captioned applications which have been filed by defendant nos 1 and 2 under Section 45 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 1996 Act). Before I proceed further, it may perhaps be relevant as well as convenient to broadly allude to the contours of the case.2. In the action filed by the plaintiffs there are four parties impleaded. The four parties are: plaintiff no.1 i.e., Focus Brands Trading (India) Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as Focus); plaintiff no.2 i.e., Jubilant Enpro Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as Jubilant); defendant no.1 i.e., Campari International S.A.M. (hereinafter referred to as Campari); and defendant no.2 ...
Triloki Nath Dhir Vs N.D.M.C.and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
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 this petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the eviction order dated 2nd November, 2007 passed by the Estate Officer and the order dated 24th December, 2009 passed by the learned District Judge upholding the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer .2. Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present petition are that a licence deed in respect of the property bearing Shop No.31 South Market, Kidwai Nagar East, New Delhi was executed in favour of the petitioner by the respondents w.e.f 19.6.1997. A show cause notice dated 26.12.2006 was served by the Estate Officer on the petitioner on the ground that some additions and alterations were undertaken by the petitioner without the permission of the respondents and co...
Smt.Kailash Kumari Vs Smt. Rajni Monga and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment?(2) To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes (3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes .ORDER .IA No.4498/2010 (U/s 151 CPC r/w. S.138 of the Indian Evidence Act)1. Present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking cancellation of gift deed, declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of the Property No.D-1/27, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. After pleadings were complete and issues were framed, the Court directed examination of the witnesses on commission and it accordingly appointed Mr.Shivinder Chopra, Advocate as the Local Commissioner. After cross- examination of PW-4 Mr.Naveen C.Bajaj was complete, plaintiff sought re- examination of the witness. Local Commissioner accordingly directed the plaintiff to approach the Court for such permission. This has resulted into filing of the instant application for consideration.2. Plaintiff has sought permission to re-examine ...
Bhilasha Garg and anr. Vs the Appropriate Authority (Pndt Act) Dc (Eas ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
1.Whether reporters of the local news papersbe allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2.To be referred to the Reporter or not Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest Yes ORDER1. The validity of an order dated 26th November 2009 passed by the Chief District Medical Officer (CDMO), East District, Directorate of Health Services, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) cancelling the registration under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PNDT Act) in favour of Abhilasha Maternity & Medical Clinic (AMMC), (Petitioner No. 2), the owner of which is Petitioner No. 1, has been challenged by way of this writ petition.2. During the pendency of the writ petition, an order dated 27th January 2010 was passed by the CDMO suspending the registration of Petitioner No. 1 under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act). The Petitioners filed CM No. 1880 of 2010 challenging the said order dated 27 t...
Mohd. Usman @ Haji Vs Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
1. Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes2. Whether the judgment should be referred in the digest? Yes1. The grievance of the Petitioner in this petition is about the illegal interception of the telephonic conversations between the Petitioner and his family members which interception he assails as being in violation of his right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. He also challenges the two orders authorizing such interception as being violative of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (`Act) read with Indian Telegraph Rules (`Rules) as amended by the Indian Telegraph (First Amendment) Rules 1999 [hereafter `the amended Rules].2. The Petitioner alleges that on 30th April 2005 he was illegally detained and his mobile phone was misappropriated by the police and he was subjected to atrocities. Two separate criminal cases were instituted in connection with the arrest of the Petitioner. The Petitioner allege...
Sat Pal Babbar Vs Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
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.1. A departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner on the following charges:- "I, Inspr. Prem Chand, E.O./D.E. Cell charge you HC Sat Pal, No. 257/SW (Now 10174/DAP) (PIS No. 28780266) that while you were posted to PS Dabri, enquiries were made on the complaint of Shri Attar Singh Meena R/o RZ-18-A/347, Gali No.1, Jagdamba Vihar Sagar Pur, New Delhi which revealed that you acted in a partial manner giving favour to Constable Vinod Kumar who was caught red-handed while climbing the grill of the balcony of Shri Attar Singh on the night of 5/6.10.1996. You HC Sat Pal, No. 257/SW (Now 10174/DCP(I.O.) attended the call of PCR received in PS Dabri vide DD O. 6/A, dated 5.10.96 and inspite of taking action against the offender Constable Vinod Kumar you got registered a false case against Attar Singh and arrested ...
Gorakhnath Vs Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
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. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that since an inquiry was held, no penalty could be imposed upon the petitioner without supplying to him the report of the Inquiry Officer and giving an opportunity to rebut the same.2. Vide impugned order dated 04.09.2008 O.A.No.1687/2007 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.3. The petitioner was a casual labourer and having worked for more than 240 days, was accorded the status of Casual Labourer 'Temporary Employee' as per a scheme dated 10.09.1993. The said scheme dated 10.09.1993 clearly stipulated that the confirmant temporary status would not mean that the causal labourers have to be treated on the permanent establishment. It simply said that temporary status would entitle the casual labourers to certain benefits. Clause 7 of the circular clearly ...
Sarla Devi Vs Rajesh Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
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? YesORDER.1. This second appeal is impugned judgment dated 1.05.2010 which had endorsed the finding of the Civil Judge dated 16.09.2009. Vide judgment and decree dated 16.09.2009, the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC had been accepted; the plaint of the plaintiff had been rejected on the ground of limitation.2. The plaintiff before the trial court was Smt. Sarla Devi. She had filed a suit for declaration seeking a prayer that the adoption ceremony dated 13.04.1977 and the Adoption Deed dated 12.08.1985 be declared null and void. This was the adoption which had purportedly been made by Smt. Vidya Wati; adopting Sh. Rajesh Sharma as her son.3. Para 10 and 11 of the plaint are relevant and are reproduced as follows:- "10. That the second wife of Shri. Madan Mohan i.e. Smt. Vidya Wati al...
Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Ms. Renu Chawla and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
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 challenging the impugned order dated 14th May, 2010 passed by Additional Rent Controller (for short as Controller), Delhi, vide which petitioners application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short as Code) for being impleading as a party to the eviction petition, was dismissed.2. In application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code, it is stated that premises in question was taken on rent by late Sh. S.L.Gupta, deceased father of the petitioner and petitioner used to go and sit on the shop and was assisting his father in running the business. Even after death of his father, petitioner has been regularly coming and sitting on the shop and is also helping his brother Mr. Pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »