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.
Smt.Hanjabi Ratanchand Solanki and ors. Vs. Smt. Kanugabai Hansraj JaI ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2011
ORAL :1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 27th September, 1991 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Pune, allowing the Appeal filed by the Respondent (Landlord), thereby passing a decree for eviction against the petitioners.2. It appears that the court receiver was appointed initially in respect of the suit property. The respondent appears to have purchased the property in a court auction. On 7th of December, 1997 the court receiver issued a notice to the petitioners, alleging that the petitioners are in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 4275/- upto 31st December, 1972 and further he was in arrears of rent to Rs. 4425/- from 1st January, 1973 to 30th November, 1977. The notice also stated that the petitioners were in arrears of education cess amounting to Rs. 77.50 from 1.4.1968 to 30.9.1971; Rs.84/- from 1.10.1971 to 31.03.1974 and education cess of Rs. 396/- from 1.4.1974 to 30.11.1977. According to t...
In the Matter Of: L/Nk Virender Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2011
1. The petitioner/applicant filed this writ petition No.3982/1996 before the Honble High Court of Delhi challenging his termination of service by discharge order dated 01.06.1996, under Army Rule 13(3) III (V) and DSR Para 333 on the allegation of plural marriage. He also made prayer in the petition that he be reinstated with all consequential benefits. The writ petition was thereafter, transferred to this tribunal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was enrolled in army on 15.03.1992. It is stated by the applicant that he married to Ms. Sumer Kanwar daughter of Choto Singh. Thereafter Mrs. Sumer Kanwar made a complaint against him on 25.07.1991 alleging ill-treatment and contracting second marriage with Kanchan Kanwar, daughter of Bane Singh. On that basis it is alleged that a Court of enquiry was ordered and show cause notice dated 07.09.1991 was also given to the applicant. It is alleged by the applicant that he never married with Kanchan Kanwar. His wife was suf...
In the Matter Of: Shri Krishan Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2011
1. The applicant had filed WP(C) No 3691/1994 in the Honble Delhi High Court challenging his order of discharge dated 03/07/1988 by which he has been discharged during training period. The case was transferred to this tribunal on 07/10/ 2009. 2. The facts of the case which was narrated that the applicant was enrolled in the Army in Corps of Engineers on 24/10/1987. During training he failed in beam pull up test and on that basis he was discharged on 03/07/1988, without issue of any show cause notice. It was further submitted that near about 15 personnel were declared failed in test but out of them 07 personnel were declared passed. It was contended by the petitioner that more opportunity should have been given to clear the impugned test. That was not provided and applicant was discharged under rule 13 (iii) (iv) being undesirable and inefficient soldier. 3. In the counter respondents stated that applicant performance during the training was poor and he failed to achieve the desired m...
Chattar Singh Vs. Subhash and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
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 in Digest Yes BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J1. Mr Chattar Singh has filed this appeal under the proviso to section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code'), claiming himself to be a victim. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.01.2010 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi whereby the respondent nos. 1 to 4 who had been charged under sections 120-B, 364 r/w 120-B, 302 r/w 120-B and 201 r/w 120-B IPC, were acquitted. 2. The primary question which arises in this case is with regard to the maintainability of the appeal. Can Mr Chattar Singh, the father of the deceased Satish, be regarded as a victim for the purposes of the proviso to section 372 of the Code? Who is a victim' for the purposes of the proviso to section 372 of the Crimin...
Har ChaIn Singh Vs. Dda and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment No2. To be referred to Reporters or not No3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest Yes1. I propose to dispose of the captioned suits by a common judgment for the reason that not only are all parties in the captioned suits [except the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as DDA)] members of one family but also that the court, by order dated 05.09.1990 passed in FAO (OS) 280/1989, directed consolidation of the said suits, and the evidence by observing that evidence will be led in suit No. 2996/1988. In addition to this, property being: 17, Ashok Vihar Community Centre, Delhi 110 052 (hereinafter referred to as the Ashok Vihar Property), over which the core dispute centres, is common to the captioned suits. It is perhaps with this background that the court, by order dated 02.07.1996, passed in suit no. 2996/1988 framed common issues.2. The first two suits, that is, suit no. 1099/198...
Management of Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. Surya Prakash
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes. 1. Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 24th April, 2005 passed in W.P.(C) 830/2003 whereby the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has remanded the matter back to the Labour Court for readjudication. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that the respondent- workman was working with the appellant as a Peon w.e.f. 12th September 1989 and worked continuously without break till 18th June, 1990. The workman initially worked for the period from 12th September, 1989 to 07th May, 1999, as a daily wager and thereafter, on 08th May, 1990 he was issued an appointment letter. The Clause 2 of the appointment letter reads as under : "You will be on probation for a period of one year which may be extended at the absolute discretion of the Man...
Director of Education and anr. Vs. Smt. Krishna Kumari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO the Digest?1.These are the applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the review application seeking review of order dated 21st December, 2009 dismissing the writ petition and upholding the order of the Tribunal dated 15th May, 2009 passed in OA No. 1790/2008 allowing the original application of the respondent and issuing a direction to the petitioner to accord notional pay fixation to the respondent TGT from 1984. For seeking condonation of delay of 335 days in filing the review application, it is contended by the petitioner/applicant that the file was sent to the Directorate of Education for necessary action on 19th January, 2010 and thereafter, the file was sent to OS(III), Litigation on 27th January, 2010.2. According to the averments of the petitioner/applicant, from 27th January, 2010 up to 8th September,...
Gulab Singh Vs. Dda and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment No2. To be referred to Reporters or not No3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest YesRAJIV SHAKDHER, J1. I propose to dispose of the captioned suits by a common judgment for the reason that not only are all parties in the captioned suits [except the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as DDA)] members of one family but also that the court, by order dated 05.09.1990 passed in FAO (OS) 280/1989, directed consolidation of the said suits, and the evidence by observing that evidence will be led in suit No. 2996/1988. In addition to this, property being: 17, Ashok Vihar Community Centre, Delhi 110 052 (hereinafter referred to as the Ashok Vihar Property), over which the core dispute centres, is common to the captioned suits. It is perhaps with this background that the court, by order dated 02.07.1996, passed in suit no. 2996/1988 framed common issues.2. The first two suits, that is, ...
Aga Jafar Mirza and anr. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
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 1. This application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appellant No. 1 (Aga Jafar Mirza) is the son-in-law of the deceased Shamshul Hasan and the appellant No. 2 (Khurshid Begum) is the wife of the deceased. This appeal had been filed by the appellant No. 1 and then the appellant No. 2, that is, the wife of the deceased was impleaded by an order of this Court on 14.12.2010.2. The respondent No.2 (Nafees Ahmed) and the respondent No.3 (Shakeel @ Ghanti) were charged with the murder of the deceased and acquitted vide the impugned judgment dated 30.01.2010. The appellant No. 1 had filed the appeal claiming to be a victim in terms of the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). Even though the son-in-law is not a legal heir as ...
Subhash Chand Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner assailing an order dated 4th February 2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby he dismissed the objections raised by the petitioner about maintainability of the appeal.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the Food Inspector under provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 filed a complaint against the petitioner. In that complaint case, the petitioner was acquitted by the learned MM. Against the order of acquittal, the Delhi Administration preferred a criminal appeal under Section 378(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code before the learned Sessions Judge. The petitioner raised objections that since the petitioner was prosecuted in a complaint case, the appeal would lie only un...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »