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.
Palak Kaur Arora Vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha 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 petitioner had sought admission in the B.Tech. Programme in the Sikh Minority Category in the respondent no.2 Institute, a Minority Educational Institution, affiliated to the respondent no.1 University. It was a term for admission in the said category that the applicants were required to produce the Minority Certificate issued by the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee. The case of the petitioner is that though the petitioner produced such a Certificate but was not granted admission for the reason of minor discrepancy in her name; while the name of the petitioner in the CBSE certificate is Palak Arora, in the Minority Certificate issued by the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee, the name was Palak Kaur Arora. The petitioner claiming that there is still a vacancy in the said Category, seeks a ...
Sarwan Singh Alias Guru Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2011
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. The Appellants are the husband and wife, presently aged about 75 years and 71 years respectively. They both have been convicted for offences under Section 412 IPC and have been awarded a sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and two years respectively and to pay a fine of `5,000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months each in case FIR No. 871/1983, PS Karol Bagh under Section 397/395 IPC.2. On 26th November, 1983 at about 1.30 a dacoity took place at the shop 'Maya Jewellers' in Karol Bagh. The complainant Bishan Dev, his father Arjun Dass and accountant Jagdish Chander Kalra were present in the shop. While Bishan Dev was sitting at the counter and his father Arjun Dass was inside, six sikh gentlemen entered into the shop and took out the revolv...
State Vs. Ramesh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers maybe 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. The prosecution case in nutshell is that on 4 th March, 1985 at about 11.00 A.M., both the Respondents along with 18-20 associates went to the office of the DCP, Traffic at Police Headquarter, IP Estate. When they reached the office, the orderly of the DCP, Traffic, Constable Kishore Lal stopped them and both the Respondents along with their associates forcefully entered the office. They shouted slogans 'Delhi Police Murdabad', manhandled and pushed the orderly Constable Kishore Lal. Inside the office, heated exchange of words took place and chairs were thrown here and there. The DCP, Traffic Sh. A.S. Khan was also gheraoed. Many police officials reached there and rescued the DCP, Traffic. PW9, Sh. Neeraj Kumar, the DCP traffic on 30th April, 1985 accorded the sanction for prosecution under Sec...
Shri Narender Gupta Vs. M/S. Reliance Polycrete Ltd.and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2011
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 recovery of Rs.46,82,000/-. It is alleged in the plaint that defendant No.1 - Reliance Polycrete Ltd. is an associate of defendant No.5 Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corpn. Ltd. in terms of an agreement dated 30.6.2005 between them for rendering services for export/domestic sale of Indian Wheat. Defendants 2 to 4 are directors of defendant No.1. It is alleged in the plaint that defendants 1 to 4 induced the plaintiff to part with a sum of Rs.2.40 crores for supply of wheat and pursuant thereto the aforesaid amount was deposited by the plaintiff with defendant No.5 in the account of defendant No.1. Defendant No.5 issued two orders; one for release of 2500 MT of wheat and the other for release of 1250 MT of wheat, to the plaintiff, in the account of defendant No.1. Vide letter dated 23.8.2005, defe...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. M/S. Gautam Hospital and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2011
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 the present appeal, the Appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitting the Respondents for commission of offence under Section 29 (2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957(in short the D.D. Act).2. Briefly, the version of the Complainant CW-2 Shri R.K. Gupta, Junior Engineer is that he inspected premises No.2, Kohat Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi on 24th November, 1993 and found a nursing home functioning under the name of M/s. Gautam Hospital in the basement in an area of 800 sq. ft. and on the ground, first and second floors in an area of about 1800 sq. ft. each. This premises fell under Development zone No.H-5 and could be used for residential purposes only. On a complaint being filed, the Respondents pleaded not guilty. After recording the Complainant's evid...
Vikram Enterprises Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2011
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. It was made clear on 6th September, 2010 that the application for restoration shall be heard only when the petitioner is also willing to argue the writ petition on merits. The counsel for the petitioner has today expressed willingness to argue the writ petition on merits. The counsel for the petitioner has been heard on the writ petition. The counsel for the respondent no.3 NDMC has been heard in opposition to the application for restoration.2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the writ petition is restored to its original position. W.P.(C) 10221-22/20043. The counsels for the petitioner and the respondent no.3 NDMC have been heard.4. The writ petition impugns the order dated 8th January, 2004 of the Appellate Tribunal, MCD, only partly allowing the appeal of the petitioner ...
Uddam Singh JaIn Charitable Trust Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2011
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 petition impugns the disconnection of electric supply to the premises of the petitioner for the reason of the demand of approximately `10,00,000/- towards arrears of electricity charges. It is the contention of the petitioner that inspite of earlier dues of electricity having been cleared and a new meter being installed, again arrears were being shown without any explanation. It is further the contention of the petitioner that the multiplying factor of 1x40 has been applied in computing the electricity charges without any basis.2. Notice of the petition was issued. The respondent NDMC has filed counter affidavit to which rejoinder has been filed.3. It is inter alia the contention of the respondent NDMC that the petitioner had agreed to pay the entire amount and by filing the present petition is back tra...
Ms. Zeenat Insaf Vs. Dr. Sudhansu Bhattacharya
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers No may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be Yes reported in the Digest?1. By this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of complaint No. 5838/2009 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that entire cause of action had arisen at Mumbai; inasmuch as parties are Crl. M.C. No. 1671-2010 Page 1 of 4 residents of Mumbai. Cheques in question were issued at Mumbai; cheques were presented for encashment at Mumbai. Drawers bank on which cheques had been drawn was also in Mumbai. In spite of this, complaint had been preferred at Delhi by the respondent through his Attorney, who happens to be residing in Delhi only on the ground that the statutory notice had been issued by a lawyer from New Delhi. It is contended that mere issuance ...
Moti Lal Wali Vs. Delhi Deveopment Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2011
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 in Digest? No ORDER1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Delhi Development Authority ('DDA') cancelling the registration of the Petitioner under its Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981 ('RRS 1981') for allotment of an MIG plot. He prays for its restoration.2. The admitted facts are that the Petitioner was registered with the DDA under its RRS 1981 for allotment of an MIG plot. The Petitioner stated that at the time of registration he was the owner of a quarter bearing Municipal No. 4674, Murari Lal Building No. 2, Rosanara Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi consisting of one kitchen, one bath room, one toilet and a courtyard on the ground floor and one room and a small courtyard on the first floor, on a plot of land measuring 55 sq. yards. It is stated that this fact was disclosed by the Petitioner under Column VI-A of the appl...
In the Matter Of: Subedar Sukhbir Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2011
1. The applicant had filed WP(C) 9528/2007 in the Honble Delhi High Court and the same was transferred to this tribunal on 09/11/2009. The applicant had prayed that the order dated 13/08/2007 (Page 38C) rejecting his statutory complaint be quashed and he be granted Honorary (Hony) Commission to Lieutenant (Lt) with effect from 26/01/2005 and subsequently Captain (Capt), with effect from 15/08/2005, with all consequential benefits. 2. The applicant was enrolled in the Army on 19.10.1977 and promoted to Substantive Subedar in February 1999. The applicant was awarded GOC-in-C Commendation Card (CC) on 15/08/2005. The applicant has contended that he did not get due weightage of marks for his service in Operational/High Altitude tenures, Courses attended by him and Special Appointments . The applicants main contention is that GOC-in-C Commendation Card award (Annexure P-1) should have been given due weightage and he should have been awarded marks for the same for Hony Commissions announced...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »