Delhi Court January 2011 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2011 Page 22 of about 216 results (0.018 seconds)Yogesh Vs. the State
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 in Digest Yes BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)1. This appeal relates to the murder of a 15 year old boy named Girish @ Baboo, who is the son of Shri Ram Rakha (PW-1). As per the charge-sheet filed before the trial court, there were four accused the present appellant (Yogesh), Mewa Ram, Baij Nath and Rakesh. Two of the accused, Baij Nath and Rakesh were discharged by the trial court vide order dated 19.08.1996 after recording that there was no evidence against the said accused apart from the disclosure statements which could not be relied upon as evidence. Thereafter, the trial continued in respect of the present appellant Yogesh and Mewa Ram. The charges were framed against the present appellant for having allegedly committed the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 364 IPC as also the offence punishable under Section 201/34 ...
Tag this Judgment!icici Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Suriya Begum and ors.
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 judgment should be reported in Digest? 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant impugns the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 07.05.2010 passed in Suit No.775/2008 whereunder the respondent No.1 was awarded the sum of ` 6,12,816/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till realization of the amount. 2. The claim in the above suit arose in the following factual background.3. On 3rd October, 2006 at 5.30 a.m., a Tata Innova Car bearing registration No.DL-7CG-0779 ran into a TSR. The driver of the said TSR, Kamar Abbas aged 22 years, succumbed to the injuries sustained by him leaving behind him his parents, brothers and sisters. The father of the deceased Kamar Abbas, however, died during the course of the enquiry. Smt. Suriya Begum, the mother of the deceased, appeared in the witness box a...
Tag this Judgment!In the Matter Of: Havildar Jaswant Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The applicant had filed WP (C) 7101/2009 in the Honble Delhi High Court and the same was transferred to this Tribunal on 07/09/2009. The applicant had prayed for issue of direction to promote him to Naib Subedar with ante date seniority in light of Honble Delhi High Court judgement dated 20/11/2008 (Annexure P-1) and judgement dated 30/01/2009 (Annexure P-5). 2. The applicant was enrolled in the Army on 10/12/1984 and in his turn was promoted Havildar with date of superannuation being 31/12/2008 i.e after 24 years of service. The applicant contends that he had also qualified in Havildar to Naib Subedar promotion cadre and was fully qualified for promotion to the rank of Naib Subedar. The applicant was however discharged prematurely on 31/07/2008 since he was low medical category (LMC) P-2 permanent reactive arthritis. This was based on direction of Chief of Army Staff policy letter dated 12/04/2007. The applicant contends that this policy letter was quashed vide Honble Delhi High C...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Nath Gupta Vs. Ravindra Nath Gupta
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. Defendant No.1 is the son and the defendant No.2 is the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff who is a senior citizen being 77 years of old. The plaintiff claims to be in possession of property No.577-578, Katra Ashrafi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-6. The property comprises ground floor, mezzanine floor, first floor and second floor with common passage and stairs leading from the ground floor to the upper stories and has been constructed on land measuring 32 sq. yds. Initially, this property was taken on rent by a partnership firm in which late Bhola Nath Gupta, father of the plaintiff, Smt. Parbati Devi, mother of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself and his brother Rajeshwar Nath Gupta were the partners. On demise of late Shri Bhola Nath Gupta, the partnership firm was re-constituted with Smt. Parbati Devi, the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Bansal
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral): 1. The short facts of the case are that the complainant owned a Hero Honda motor cycle bearing No. DL-9SL-6526. He obtained an insurance policy effective from 27.5.2007 to 26.5.2008 for an insured value of Rs. 70,205 from the OP Insurance Company. When on 11.10.2007 the vehicle was parked in front of the house No. R-3A/87 in Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, it was stolen away. 2. The complainant lodged an FIR of the incident on 7.11.2007 at PS Uttam Nagar, West Delhi alleging the date of theft as 6.11.2007. In his Case Diary Statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. (copy of which is Annexure A-4 on the appeal file) recorded by the Police, he narrated that on 7.11.2007, he had gone to his in-laws and had placed his motor cycle outside the house, he found it missing the next morning. He had given its information on Tel. No. 100. 3. He thereafter on 19.11.2007 lodged a claim amounting to Rs. 70,205 with the OP Insurance Company mentioning therein date of theft as 6....
Tag this Judgment!Resources of Aviation Redressal Association Vs. Uoi and ors
Court: Delhi
1. In these two writ petitions the controversy that emerges for consideration being similar, they were heard together and disposed of by a singular order. 2. We may not with profit that W.P.(C) No.3889/2011 has been preferred by Resources of Aviation Redressal Association and W.P.(C) No.3893/2011 is at the instance of Consumer Online Foundation. It is apt to note, both the associations have preferred the writ petitions as pro bono publico basically praying for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the public notice dated 23rd April, 2010 issued by the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India (for short, the authority') under the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act, 2008 (for brevity, the 2008 Act') on the foundation that such a determination could not have been made by the said authority without following the procedure postulated under Section 13 of the Act and that apart the concept of ad- hoc determination is not contemplated under the purview of the p...
Tag this Judgment!