Delhi Court January 2011 Judgments

M.C.D. and Others Vs. Anil Kumar Gupta

Court: Delhi

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. 14th January, 2011. Municipal Corporation of Delhi by this present intra-court appeal assails the Order dated 22nd September, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing writ petition (civil) no. 8983/2009 filed by Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, the respondent herein. By the impugned Order, the learned Single Judge has quashed Order dated 5th February, 2009 passed by the Deputy Health Officer, City Zone, revoking/cancelling of the license given to the respondent for carrying of business of selling khoya, paneer and sweets from shop no. 470, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. 2. Deputy Health Officer, City Zone had issued show cause notice dated 22nd December, 2006 and letter/reminder dated 8th January, 2007 and had sought an explanation why the license of the respondent should not be cancelled on account of false claims and d...

Shri B.B. Sabharwal and anr. Vs. M/S. Sonia Associates

Court: Delhi

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 Yes in Digest?1. This is a suit for specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 20th June, 1997 or in the alternative for recovery of Rs.40,00,000/- as damages.2. The case of the plaintiffs is that on 20th June, 1997, the defendant agreed to sell the entire first floor of property No.D-144, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi to them for a consideration of Rs.40,00,000/-. A sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid to the defendant towards earnest money and the balance amount of Rs.35,00,000/- was agreed to be paid within 15 days from the date of the agreement. The defendant was required to obtain NOC as also Income Tax Clearance certificate required for execution and registration of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiffs, the balance sale consideration was to be paid after the defendant had obtained necessa...

Ramesh Chandra Aggarwal Vs. M.C.D. and ors.

Court: Delhi

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 No in the Digest?1. The petitioner claiming to be a resident of House No.127, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi filed this writ petition for directing the respondents MCD and the Police Authorities to stop the respondent no.4 from operating illegal Atta Chakki and Masala Chakki from Property No.130-B, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi. It is the contention of the petitioner that the street in front of House No.130-B, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi from which the Atta Chakki is being run by the respondent no.4 is hardly about five meters wide and no Atta Chakki can be permitted to be run therefrom.2. Notice of the writ petition was issued and the respondent no.1 MCD filed an affidavit dated 6/10th August, 2007 in which it was inter alia stated that the factory license for Atta Chakki had been issued to the respondent no.4 with load of 5 KW at ground floo...

Nirmal Jeet Kaur Vs. Union of India and anr

Court: Delhi

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed Yes to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes1. This appeal arises out of an order dated 05.06.2009 passed by the Ld. Railways Claim Tribunal, whereby the Ld. Tribunal dismissed the condonation of delay application filed by the appellant after two years under Railway Claim Tribunal Act. 1987.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are; that the husband of the appellant who was the only bread winner in the family died an untimely and accidental death on 25.11.2006. This completely devastated the life of appellant and her two children and took appellant a while to get back to her normal self. Further, appellant being a housewife and having no occasion to deal with the outside world, procuring documents for her from (1) police (ii) Lady Hardinge Medical College and Smt Sucheta Kriplani Hospital, New Delhi (iii) New Delhi Municipal Council (iv) Delhi Sikh...

Shanti Devi Vs. M.C.D. and anr.

Court: Delhi

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 NO in the Digest?1. The petitioner had in or about 2004-2005 applied for allotment of two plots of land in the Ghogha, Narela, New Dairy Colony under development by the respondent MCD. The petitioner against the column "address for correspondence" gave the address of "Dairy H. No.680, Village & Post Office-Bakner, Delhi-110040" and against the column "name of the place where Dairy is running" filled "Bakner". On the basis of the said representation of the petitioner, the respondent MCD on 23 rd May, 2005 allotted two plots bearing No.B-106 and B-107 to the petitioner and the petitioner deposited a sum of `2,40,000/- with the respondent MCD thereagainst.2. The scheme for development of Ghogha Dairy Colony was mooted pursuant to the directions in a public interest litigation being W.P.(C) No.3791/2000 titled Common Cause Society...

Sh. Gurbachan Singh (Decd.) Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

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 No in the Digest?1. The petitioner, claiming to be the allottee of shop No.512, Old Lajpat Rai Market, Delhi-110 006, filed this petition for directing the respondents Department of Internal Security, Rehabilitation Division of the Union of India and the MCD to fix the valuation of the said shop in accordance with the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and the Rules (of the year 1955) framed thereunder and to allot the same to the petitioner, as a displaced person, on rental basis. Relief is also claimed for direction to the respondents to have transferred the ownership rights in respect of the said shop and lease hold rights in respect of the land underneath the shop in favour of the petitioner.2. A perusal of the order sheet shows that the petitioner along with the writ petition had...

Darshan Lal Nagpal and ors. Vs. Govt. of National Capital Territory De ... Overruled

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 181(2011)DLT459; 2011(121)DRJ678

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers 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?A.K. SIKRI, J.1. The land of the petitioners herein comprising of Khasra Nos. 5/21,22/2,6/21, 23/1 (min), 23/2 (min), 5/24, 25,24 (min), 23, 5/9/1 along with other chunk of land has been acquired by the respondent no.1 for the public purpose i.e. for the development of 400 X 220 KV Grid Stations in village Mandoli. The total area which is acquired is 80 bigha and 15 biswa area belonging to various persons of the said village. Out of this, land of the petitioners covered by the aforesaid Khasra nos.is approximately 150 bighas. For the purpose of acquisition of the aforesaidland, Notification dated 13th October, 2009 was issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the „Act) stating that land described herein i.e. land in question was likely to be acquired for public purpos...

In the Matter Of: Recruit Jitender Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

1. The applicant had filed OA 188 of 2009 before this Tribunal requesting that the order of his discharge (page 8) dated 01.09.2009 be quashed and he be reinstated back in service and permitted to complete the balance of recruit training with all consequential benefits. 2. The applicant states that he was enrolled as a recruit on 19.06.2008. During training the applicant developed Inguinal Hernia and had to be operated on. Subsequently, he was granted sick leave and was admitted to military hospital. The applicant states that since he missed 193 days of training, he was withdrawn and discharged on 01.09.2009 (Page 8) on medical grounds despite being SHAPE-1 (page 27). 3. The applicant contends that in calculating the period of 193 days absence the respondents should not have counted his periods of low medical category of 84 and 56 days. This total of 140 days should be deducted from the period of 193 days absence as he attended academic classes, which are a part of recruit training c...

Bilal Ahmed Vs. State

Court: Delhi

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Not necessary2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes 1. By this appeal, the Appellant challenges his conviction under Section 20 of the NDPS Act (in short the Act) and the order of sentence whereby he has been directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years and a fine of `1 lakh and in default thereof to undergo further two years imprisonment.2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 2nd May, 1999 an information was received that some militants were coming to Delhi and may commit an offence. A checking party was constituted which stationed itself near Sarai Peepal Thala. At about 7.30 P.M. during checking, two persons coming from the Apple Mandi, G.T.K. Road having bags on their shoulders were spotted. On seeing the police party, they tried to slip away between the trucks parked. They were overpowered and one of them named Bila...

Shri Hans Raj Goel Vs. Shri Ram Niwas and anr.

Court: Delhi

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? No1. By this appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2004, whereby the suit filed by the appellant for declaration, permanent injunction, possession and damages in respect of the property bearing No.C-9/3, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi was dismissed.2. Brief facts of the case, as per the appellant and relevant for deciding the present appeal are that the appellant was the owner of the property bearing no. C/93 Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi and had entered into a commission agreement with the respondents with regard to half the portion of the said property on 5.10.1985. That vide agreement to sell dated 10.5.95 the appellant sold the said portion of the property to the respondents for a sum of 3 lakhs and an amoun...