Delhi Court January 2011 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.
Malkhan Singh Vs. Union of IndiA.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
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. Alleging that the petitioner claimed reimbursement for stated medical expenses and in respect whereof furnished false medical documents during the period 15.03.1989 to 22.02.1992 in sum of ` 6281.40 a memorandum of charge was issued on 25.04.1992 by the Deputy Commandant CISF Unit, NFL Bhatinda. In response to the said memorandum the petitioner filed a reply denying the charge.2. Considering the reply filed by the petitioner and finding the same inadequate, the Group Commandant appointed Sh.G.P.Rathore, Deputy Commandant CISF Unit Sawer Mines, Udaipur as the Enquiry Officer vide order dated 02.07.1990.3. During inquiry the Enquiry Officer recorded statement of five prosecution witnesses, all of whom were cross-examined by the petitioner. Defence statement of the petitioner was also recorded.4. The petitioner had not...
Rajni Singh and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
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. 12th January, 2011. Petitioner no.1 is an advocate and petitioner nos. 2 and 3 it is stated are washermen (Dhobis) who along with others were using and residing in hutments near the dhobi ghat No. 28, Rouse Avenue. Along with the petition, a list of 47 dhobis has been filed and it is alleged that their hutments have been demolished but no alternative site has been allotted to them. Ministry of Urban Development, L&DO;, Government of India, (L&DO;, for short) is the land owning agency of the land which was earlier in occupation of the dhobis. It was stated that the said dhobis have set up temporary hutments on the left side of Deen Dayal Upadhyay Sarvodaya Vidyalaya, New Delhi.2. A joint survey of the area at Rouse Avenue occupied by dhobis was carried out by L&DO; and DDA. As per the affidavit of L&DO; a tota...
Sunil Kumar Rajput and anr. Vs. Smt. Bhagwan Devi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
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 been directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.04.2006 which had allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the executing court dated 30.8.2005. Vide judgment dated 30.8.2005, the objections of Smt. Bhagwan Devi filed in the course of the execution proceedings had been dismissed. The impugned judgment dated 20.04.2006 had allowed the objections of the objector Bhagwan Devi thereby dismissing the execution petition. This judgment is now in appeal before this Court.2. Briefly stated the factual matrix is as follows:- (i) Plaintiff Faqir Chand had purchased the suit property being No.33/27, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi as an evacuee property on 23.12.1958. Allegation was that in 1971 Devi Sahai (husband of objector Bhagwan Devi) took illegal possession of the suit prope...
Court Its Own Motion Vs. U.O.i.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
1. The present public interest litigation was initiated suo motu by this Court taking into consideration a newspaper report dated 29th August, 2010 published in the Hindustan Times that a destitute woman breathed her last on a busy street after giving birth to a baby girl, namely, Karishma who had been struggling for life at a foster home, namely, Udayan. The matter was dealt with to some extent on 1 st September, 2010 and how important and significant the life of a child who forms the vertebra of a spine of the nation and the role of the mother in building the nation. On 20th October, 2010, after hearing Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned Amicus Curiae along with Ms.Jayshree Satpute, Advocate, this Court had issued the following directions: -"(1) Government of NCT of Delhi to demarcate five secured shelter homes exclusively meant for destitute women, pregnant and lactating women so that apposite care can be taken and no destitute women would be compelled to give birth on the footpath.(2) Th...
S. Balachandran Vs. Jawaharlal Nehru University and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
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 counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to hand over rejoinder to the counter affidavit of the respondent no.1 University in the Court. Even though there is no justification for the same, time having been taken on 6 th December, 2010 to file the rejoinder, in the interest of justice, the same is allowed and the rejoinder is taken on record.2. The petitioner claiming to be belonging to Other Backward Castes (OBC) category had applied for admission to the respondent no.1 University in M.A (Economics) course and had appeared for an entrance examination for the same. Upon the petitioner being not admitted, the petitioner first filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madras. The respondent no.1 University filed a counter affidavit in the High Court of Madras where it was stated that the petitioner did...
Janardan Sharma Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
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. To effect recruitment of constables under Border Security Force (BSF) a Recruitment Board was constituted to conduct the Physical Endurance Test and other tests in various towns in the eastern part of the State of Uttar Pradesh between the dates 25th May and up to 12th June 1988. To maintain discipline during the selection process a team was deputed consisting of Head Constables and Constables of which the petitioner was put in-charge and named as the Commander of the Team. This team was called Administration Party. It is apparent that the name was so given because the team under in charge of the petitioner was to ensure that the prospective candidates were well managed as it was expected that a large number would report for recruitment and the number of persons to be handled would be a crowd.2. The team visited var...
Shri Phool Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
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 second appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment dated 31.5.2003 which had reversed the finding of the trial judge dated 27.4.1994. Vide the judgment and decree dated 27.4.1994 the suit of the plaintiff Phool Singh seeking declaration and permanent injunction was decreed in his favour. He was held to be reinstated in the service w.e.f. 08.5.1997. The impugned judgment had set aside the said order; the suit of the plaintiff stood dismissed. This is a second appeal.2. It is not in dispute that the voluntary retirement scheme (VRS) had been introduced by the respondent corporation on 3.3.1993. On 31.3.1993 appellant Phool Singh had exercised his option to participate in this Scheme. On 08.4.1003 he give an application to the Depot Manager (DM) of the respondent corporation withdrawing the ...
Smt. Vidyawati Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
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. This appeal arises out of an order dated 18.02.2008 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim of the appellant filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act for payment of compensation on account of death of Sh. Vijay Kumar, who was admittedly a bona fide passenger.2. According to the appellant, the deceased boarded the EMU passenger train from Palwal Railway Station for Delhi and when the train was running between Faridabad and TKD railway stations, the deceased while proceeding towards the door of the train for throwing out the contents of the stomach, accidentally fell down from the train due to jerk and sustained injuries on his person and died.3. The claim was contested by the respo...
Kiran Mehta Vs. B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
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 reported No in the Digest?1. The respondent on inspection of the property of the petitioner on 2 nd April, 2004 and as per the Joint Inspection Report of that date, found the petitioner to be indulging in direct theft of electricity from LV mains bus bar through different cables. The respondent claims to have raised a direct theft bill of `3,51,396/- dated 12th April, 2004 on the petitioner and on non- payment thereof, disconnected the electricity to the petitioner through the electricity connection in the name of the petitioner with 1 KW load.2. Aggrieved therefrom the present writ petition was filed for re-connection of the electricity connection and for quashing of the inspection report dated 2nd April, 2004.3. This Court on 31st May, 2004 while issuing notice of the writ petition, directed restoration of electric supply to the peti...
Shri Hira Lal Vs. Shri Bhagwati Prasad and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
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 been directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 08.10.2003 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 14.7.2003 whereby the suit of the plaintiff filed by the plaintiff Hira Lal seeking permanent and mandatory injunction to the effect that defendants no.1 to 5 (who are tenants in the suit property) be directed not to pay the rent to the defendant no.6 Om Prakash (brother of the plaintiff) but to the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff claimed himself to the owner of house No.C-1 (Plot No.60, MCD No.145), Sanwal Nagar, New Delhi. Defendants no.1 to 5 were his tenants. Defendant no.6 was his real brother who has been authorized to collect rent on his behalf from the tenants. Acrimony arose between the parties. Plaintiff sent legal notice informing defendant no.6 that he di...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »