Delhi Court January 2011 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2011 Page 14 of about 216 results (0.020 seconds)Smt. Vimal Kanta Vs. Shri J.M. Kohli
Court: Delhi
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? Yes1. The appellant at this old age of 80 years is before this court in appeal to challenge the judgment and decree of divorce passed by the learned trial court vide order dated 30.9.94 on the ground of desertion envisaged under Section 13 (1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, thereby dissolving the marriage between the parties.2. A conspectus of facts of the present appeal is that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 20.6.1953 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and a female child was born out of this wedlock on 14.7.1954, who has been living throughout with her mother i.e. the appellant herein. The respondent husband had filed a divorce petition on the grounds of cruelty and desertion as long back as 12.10.1982. The appellant had contested the said petition with all the zeal at her command and...
Tag this Judgment!Jodhpal and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may Not Necessary 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?1. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeals are that on 9th January, 1991 when Inspector Rajinder Singh was on patrolling duty with Head Constable Shiv Kumar, Constable Puran Singh and Constable Nathu Lal in the area of Chandrawal at about 4:20 p.m., they heard a noise and saw that one person was being chased by the public who was later identified as Jodhpal Singh s/o Nawab Singh. On being asked, it was revealed that the accused Jodhpal Singh along with co-accused Ravinder Singh, Rajiv Solanki and Vinod Kumar had committed a robbery at House No. 101, Chandrawal and also outraged the modesty of PW3. The police apprehended Jodhpal Singh on the spot and on his personal search, a lady's wrist watch was recovered which was seized vide memo Ex. PW3/H. Statement of PW 3 was recorded, on whi...
Tag this Judgment!Major Man Mohan Singh Battu Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
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? 1. On receipt of complaint that at the Unit canteen of the Regiment 2 Mahar to which the petitioner was attached as Second-in-Command, irregularities were being committed a Court of Inquiry was held which reported the correctness of the complaints received and the irregularities committed at the Unit canteen. Needless to state, as the Second-in-Command of the Unit, conduct of the petitioner was suspect and thus a decision was taken to initiate disciplinary action and Summary of Evidence was ordered to be recorded which resulted in the petitioner being finally tried summarily under Section 84 of the Army Act.2. The charge sheet framed against the petitioner listed 4 articles of charge as under:-First AN ACT PREJUDICIAL TO GOOD ORDER Charge AND MILITARY DISCIPLINE, Army ActSection 63 In that he, at-field, between 09 May...
Tag this Judgment!Ashwani Kumar 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. Briefly, the prosecution case is that on the night of 19th and 20th August, 1992 at around 2:45 a.m., the accused along with the co-accused Shamshad Ali and Bhushan, robbed one Ram Kishore of his purse containing `1500/- by using a knife. At the time of the incident, SI Karam Chand and Constable Rajinder Singh were patrolling the area and when they reached near the Flag Staff Road, they heard a noise of "chor-chor" and they saw two persons running. On chasing, the two persons were apprehended, one being the Appellant and the other Bhushan Kumar. In the meanwhile, the Complainant also reached there and on search of the Appellant, a black leather purse containing `1500/- in the denomination of `50/- each and a visiting card of Bashiruddin, were recovered which were duly identified by the Complai...
Tag this Judgment!P.N. Saluja Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Delhi
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) 1. The petitioner has challenged his removal from the services of State Bank of India while he was working as an Officer (Junior Management Grade Scale-I). He was ordered to be removed from service by his Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 24th June, 1985 after he had been found guilty in a departmental enquiry of having committed various acts of misconduct. The order of the Disciplinary Authority when challenged by the petitioner was confirmed by the Appellate Authority (Local Board) vide order dated 21st November, 1985. Then the present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The relevant facts may briefly be noticed before proceeding further to consider the grounds of challenge taken by the petitioner in this petition. The petitioner had joined the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Arti Chaudhary Vs. Sh. Vinod Kumar 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 Digest?1. This is an application for deleting the name of defendant No.2 from the array of defendants. It has been alleged in the application that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the applicant and he has unnecessarily been dragged into this litigation.2. A perusal of the plaint would show that the case of the plaintiff is that defendant No.1 represented himself to be the absolute owner and in possession of northern side portion measuring 475 sq. yards i.e. half portion of property No.62 Part of Khasra No.429 situated at Village Masjid Moth, New Delhi-110049 as per the collaboration agreement dated 3rd December, 2003 between him and defendant Nos. 3 to 6. It is further alleged in para 3 of the plaint that it was also represented by defendant No.1 that defendant Nos. 3 to 6 were the absolute owner...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and ors. Vs. Chandro Devi Decd Thr Lrs
Court: Delhi
1. This is an application for condonation for condonation of delay of 495 days as mentioned in the application for limitation. Registry has also calculated 494 days delay. Before adverting to the issue of limitation, we have thought it apt to dwell upon the merits of the case.2. In this appeal, challenge is to the order dated 8th April, 2009 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3842/2007. On perusal of the order impugned, it is manifest that late Deep Chand was granted a licence by the appellant to run two stalls and a trolley at Nangloi Railway Station. Deep Chand breath his last on 22nd November, 2001. Thereafter, the respondent, wife of late Deep Chand approached the appellants on 15th December, 2001 asking for transfer of the licence in her favour. Finally the appellants in December, 2001 communicated to her. The communication reads as follows:- " Your request for re-opening of holding has been considered after depositing the revised L/fee arrears w.e.f. ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Singh and ors. Vs. Chairman Railway Board 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? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes ORDER1. Eighteen Petitioners employed in the Railway Staff Canteen at Moradabad Division have filed this petition praying for directions to the Railways to recognize the canteen and regularize their services as railway employees. This writ petition was further amended to challenge the decision dated 9 th September, 2002 of the Railways rejecting the Petitioners request for recognition. The Petitioners base their petition essentially on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.M.R. Khan v. Union of India 1990 (Suppl) SCC 191.2. The Petitioners state that Moradabad is one of the oldest railway junctions and the railway staff canteen there has been running in the Divisional Railway Managers (DRM) office for more than 70 years now. According to the Petitioners, there are more than a thousand employees in the Moradaba...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Samay Singh @ Bali and anr. Vs. Shri Kehar Singh
Court: Delhi
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? Yes1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 26.8.2003 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 22.8.1996 whereby the suit of the plaintiff Kehar Singh seeking permanent injunction had been decreed in his favour.2. The plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction. Contention was that he is owner in possession of the property marked ABCDEF and the property marked ABHG in the site plan attached along with the plaint situated in the Ababdi Salahpur Majra, Delhi. The property marked ABCDEF was partly built up and rest is vacant land used by the plaintiff for tying his cattle. Defendant did not own and was not in possession of any land around or in the vicinity of the plaintiff. Defendant with malafidie and ulterior motive threatened to occupy the open portion of the plaintiff'...
Tag this Judgment!Court on Its Own Motion Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. The present Public Interest Litigation was suo motu initiated by this Court on the basis of a report published in Hindustan Times captioned "Man dies as 3 hospitals refuse him treatment". Be it noted, the deceased a vegetable vendor was hit by a speeding vehicle and thereafter he went to the three hospitals, viz., Babu Jagjiwan Ram Hospital, in Jahangirpuri, Sushruta Trauma Centre near Kashmere Gate and Lok Nayak Hospital (LNH) near Delhi Gate but the doctors in the said hospitals declined to admit him. He died.2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi whereby the State Government has accepted the fault and also stated that the concerned doctors have been suspended. Certain suggestions have been given to ensure that this kind of occurrence shall not occur in future.3. Be it placed on record, an affidavit has been filed by the Union of India wherein certain suggestions have also been given. Let Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, learned Additiona...
Tag this Judgment!