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.
Bhim Singh and ors Vs State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
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? Yes ORDER.1. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 30th November 2009 and Order on Sentence dated 3rd December 2009, whereby the appellant Trilok Chand was convicted under Section 302 and 498-A of IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs 15,000/- or to undergo R.I. for six months in default under section 302 and was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs 5000/- or to undergo R.I. for six months in default under Section 498-A IPC. The appellants Roshan Lal, Premwati and Bhim were convicted under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years each and to pay fine of Rs 10,000/- each or to undergo R.I. for six months each in default under Section 304-B of IPC and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two...
Rajkumar Indoria Vs Nct of Delhi, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
ORDER1. The writ petition filed by the petitioner for police protection to him and his family members was disposed of on 9th August, 2010. It was noticed that the petitioner was initially granted police protection in the year 2005 but police protection/PSO was subsequently withdrawn after re-assessment of the threat perception in the year 2007. The order dated 9th August, 2010 notices the fact that the threat perception of the petitioner and his family was examined by Special Cell, Delhi Police, Ministry of Home Affairs and then again by DCP (Special Cell). It was also noticed that there are some FIRs, which are registered against the petitioner.2. Now the petitioner has filed the present application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 stating, inter alia, that wrong and false averments have been made in the status report which amount to perjury. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that FIR No. 580/2005, Police Station NDLS, Delhi was registered on...
Lalit Beniwal Vs State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No. be allowed to see the Judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.3. Whether the judgment should be No. reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.275/2006, lodged by respondent No.3/complainant against the petitioner under Sections 279/337/307/506 IPC registered with PS Saraswati Vihar.2. The subject matter of the FIR is a complaint received from Sh.Suhaib Ahmed/respondent No.3, employed with FRRO, Delhi Police. The complainant stated that on 13.3.2006, he was accompanied by the respondent No.2 and Constable Pawan Kumar and after finishing his duties, they got down from the bus at the Deepali Chowk. While crossing the road to access his two wheeler parked at Shakti Vihar Chowki, the petitioner was found to be driving a Santro Car in a rash and negligent manner and while driving down from Peera Garhi Chowk, his vehicle hi...
Raj Kumar Rohilla and anr. Vs State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
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. The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 39/2003, P.S. Civil Lines, registered under Section 420, 468, 471, 120-B IPC read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the complaint of Petitioner No. 2. Quashing of FIR is sought on the ground of compromise arrived at between Petitioner No. 2 and Petitioner No. 1, who is the main accused. It is stated that since the parties have compromised, the FIR should be quashed.2. Mr. Ashok Kumar Goyal, Petitioner No. 2 had taken a plot under EWS category measuring 25.9 square meter from DDA. He was allotted Plot No. 199 in Pocket-10 in Sector-2 (now Sector 21), Rohini, Delhi, vide letter dated 12th May, 1995. He deposited full and final payment with DDA and was given possession of the plot. A perpetual lease deed for registration in the office of S...
BadruddIn Vs Govt. of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
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. Badruddin, Sub Inspector (Exe.) in Delhi Police, the petitioner before us filed O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 being O.A.No.2640/2008 for setting aside the order dated 29.05.2008 vide which his case for admission of his name to Promotion List F (Exe.) has been rejected. The Tribunal vide impugned order dated 10.12.2008 has not found merit in the Original Application. The relevant observations made by the Tribunal in this regard in para 10 & 11 of the order are reproduced for the sake of reference:10. Perusal of the order, reproduced above, would manifest that the applicant has been overlooked in the matter of promotion for variety of reasons. His service record during preceding ten years was examined and it was found that he had continued punishments to his credit. His name als...
A.L. Mehta Vs Niit Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? NoORDER.1. By this application, the Appellant prays for the condonation of delay of 39 days in filing the Appeal. The contents of the application read thus:-1. That the petitioner has filed appeal against Order dated 13.10.2009, as the order dated 13.10.2009 is contrary to law & which emanates out of an illegal & void agreement, unenforceable in law.2. That the petitioner had applied for a copy of the aforesaid order on 14.10.2009 on an urgent basis, which could be made ready only on 29.10.2009, as the file during the interim period was in the Court. That there has been a delay of 39 days in filing the appeal, for certain unavoidable reasons, including the time taken by the advocate to draft the petition and the interim vacation in the Court. Prayer In the above circumstances, it is prayed that the delay of 39 d...
Deepshikha Bhadauria Vs State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
ORDER1. On 10th June, 2009, Ms. Munni Devi had lodged a complaint with the police station Bhajan Pura that her daughter-in-law Ms. Deepshikha was missing. A missing person report was registered and inquiries were taken up. During investigation, Ms. Munni Devi had made a statement that Ms. Deepshikha had been abducted by Mr. Deepak Kumar, Mr. Praveen Kumar and Mr. C.P. Singh. Thereafter, FIR No. 218/2009 under Section 365/34 Indian Penal Code was registered in the police station Bhajan Pura and investigation was made.2. On 11th June, 2009, a complaint purportedly signed by Ms. Deep shikah was received in police station Bhajan Pura. In this complaint it was stated that she was living with her husband Mr. Praveen Kumar and apprehended threat to her life from her parents and others. An application for recording of statement of Ms. Deepshikha under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) was received on 14th June, 2009, in the police station Bhajan Pura from the dut...
Electro Steel Castings Ltd. Vs Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
1. Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be referred in the digest? Yes 1. This is a petition filed by the Petitioner Electro Steel Castings Ltd., (`ESCL) seeking review and recall of the order dated 26th February 2010 disposing of Writ Petition (C) 11556 of 2009.2. The background to the main writ petition is that the Petitioner is a public limited company having its office at Rajgangpur, Orissa and carrying on business of manufacture of ductile iron spun pipes, ductile iron fittings and cast iron sun pipes etc. Respondent No. 3 Steel Authority of India Limited (`SAIL) was on 6th January 1960 granted by the Mining and Geology Department, State of Orissa, Respondent No. 4, a mining lease (ML) over an area of 569.64 acres (230.55 hectares) in respect of limestone and dolomite in village Purnapani, District Sundergarh, Orissa for a period of 20 years. The ML was renewed for a furth...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S. Noble Resources and Trading Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
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. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1961") challenging the order dated 31st March, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity "ITAT") in ITA No. 273/Del/2008 for the Assessment Year 1998-1999.2. The relevant facts of the present case are that on 25th January, 2001, the respondent-assessee filed its return declaring an income of Rs.13,40,570/-. The said return was processed under Section 141(A) and notice under Section 141(2) of the Act, 1961 was duly served. The respondent-assessee's income was assessed and an addition of Rs.82,46,080/- was made. On 24th January, 2006, the assessee's case was reopened under Section 147 and notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. Consequent to the reassessm...
Naresh Kumar Vs State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
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 present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for grant of anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Cr.P.C., in respect of FIR No.511/2007 lodged by the complainant, Mr.Naresh Sabharwal against the petitioner and three others under Section 120B/406/419/420 IPC registered with PS Defence Colony.2. A status report was filed by the State on 24.9.2009. An additional status report dated 6.11.2009 is handed over by the learned APP for the State.3. As per the status report, the facts of the case are that the complainant, Mr.Naresh Sabharwal alleged that the petitioner introduced himself as a Patwari of District Sohna, Gurgaon and showed him a piece of land measuring 110 acres claiming that the same belonged to him though on papers, the same was in the names of one Mr.Arun Mathur and Mr...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »