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.
R. Dhanapal Raj Vs. Dig of Police, Cbi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
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 No reported in the Digest?1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 438 of the Cr.PC for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.02 Book No.547 dated 20.12.2010 under Sections 120-B IPC and 7, 8, 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered with Police Station: HOB/CBI/AC-III, New Delhi.2. Counsel for the respondent/CBI stated that a status report was filed in the Registry only yesterday. The same was not on the record. A copy thereof was handed over in the Court with a copy to the counsel for the petitioner.3. In a nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that as per the aforesaid FIR, the petitioner, who is the Vice Chairman of Bar Council of India (BCI) and a Member of the State Bar Council of Tami Nadu alongwith Shri R.S. Rana, Member of Bar Council of Delhi are members...
General Taxi Stand Through Suresh Chand Vs. the Assistant Engineer, Cp ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the order? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the order should be reported in Yes Digest?ORDER1. These two petitions raise common questions concerning the General Taxi Stands (GTS) notified by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic) [DCP (Traffic)] and permitted to operate on land owned by the Land & Development Office (L&DO;).2. The facts in Writ Petition (Civil) 7057 of 2009 are that on 16 th October 1979, an order was passed by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi in exercise of the powers under Section 28 (1) (b) of Delhi Police Act, 1978 (DP Act) stating that the places specified in the Schedule annexed to the said order shall be used as GTS. At Serial No. 3 of the Schedule to the said order was the location: Near new constructed road at Pragati Vihar Apartments, Lodi Road, New Delhi. It is stated that after the notification of the aforementioned GTS, the Petitioner i.e. Mr. Suresh Chand approached ...
Mr. NawabuddIn Vs. Mcd and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
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 order dated 20th January, 2011 of the Zonal Veterinary Officer of the respondent MCD revoking/cancelling the trade licence given to the petitioner for sale of mutton and chicken at shop No.E- 377, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. It is the case of the petitioner that earlier his father and after the demise of his father, he has been carrying on the same business in the said shop; that the trade is being so carried on for the last over 50 years and the licenses have been issued/renewed from time to time; the respondent MCD as a condition for renewal of the licence of the petitioner required the petitioner to submit a No Objection Certificate (NOC) and rent receipt from the landlord and also an affidavit to the effect that there was no dispute of any nature pending in any court of law with re...
Tata Motors Finance Ltd. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
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 has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 24 of 2010, P.S. Harsh Vihar, registered Under Section 392//411/34 IPC on the basis of compromise. Notice of the petition was sent to respondent who stated that he was not bound by the compromise and did not agree for quashing of FIR.2. Brief facts relevant for disposing of this petition are that respondent had taken a car on hire-purchase basis from the petitioner and stopped payment of EMI of the car. In terms of the contract, the car was repossessed by the agents of the petitioner when the respondent was on road with the car. The respondent lodged a report with the police that there was an amount of ` 30,000/- cash lying in the car when it was forcibly taken away by the agents of the petitioner. The car was seized by the police and an application for superdari was mad...
South Indian Welfare Association Vs. Mcd and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
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 writ petition seeks mandamus directing the respondents MCD and the Slum & J.J. Department, then of the MCD and since succeeded by the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board to relocate the members of the petitioner who were removed from the J.J. cluster known as New Gandhi Camp, Kailash Colony, New Delhi on 23 rd March, 2006. The petitioner claims that its members are entitled to relocation in accordance with the Policy of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi.2. Notice of the writ petition was issued. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.1 MCD. None appears for the MCD today. The respondent no.2 Slum & J.J. Department has in its counter affidavit inter alia stated that it carries out a survey to determine the eligibility for relocation on instructions from the land owning agency i.e. from whose ...
Raj Kumar Bhati and ors. Vs. Sher Singh Saini
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
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 criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioners against an order dated 22nd February, 2010 passed by learned first appellate court dismissing the appeal of the petitioners against conviction handed out to them in a case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The petitioners number 1 and 2 are the directors of a private limited company (petitioner no.3 herein). The facts reveal that petitioner no.3 had taken a loan of Rs.5 lac under a written agreement from the complainant and issued post-dated cheques for repayment of the loan and also issued cheques on account of interest. The cheques issued by the petitioners for repayment of loan got dishonoured when they were put by the complainant to the bank. The complainant served a notice on the petitioners and the petit...
In the Matter Of: Nk Dharmender Singh Ujjwa Vs. Chief of Army Staff an ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
1. The applicant had filed O.A. 57/2010 before this Tribunal praying that order dated 11.12.2009 (Annexure A-1), by which his statutory complaint was rejected, be quashed and he be promoted to the rank of Havildar (DS) w.e.f. 01.12.2007 i.e. the date his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits. In the alternative, the applicant has prayed promotion to the rank of Havildar (DMT) w.e.f. 01.12.2007 by reckoning his seniority of Naik from 25.12.2001 with all consequential benefits. 2. The applicant was enrolled in the Army as Driver (MT) on 27.06.1997. He claims that in 1998 he was re-mustered as Driver Special (DS) and performed duties in the re-mustered category for 10 years. The applicant avers that his re-mustering can be ascertained from Unit DO Part II orders dated 25.02.2002 (Annexure A-6) wherein his rank has been mentioned as Gunner (DS). His re-mustering is also clear from the quarterly statement of his accounts at Annexure A-2, which states his category as Driver ...
M/S Brakewel Automotive Components (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/S Karpagga B ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may No. be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.3. Whether the judgment should be reported No. in Digest?1. This is a suit filed under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of Rs.35,81,952.12p. The case of the plaintiff is that it supplied auto components and parts to the defendant from time to time and raised bills for the price of those goods. A sum of Rs.25,49,432.12p was alleged to be due from the defendants as principal sum as on 31st March, 2008. It is further alleged that the aforesaid dues were admitted by defendant No.3 as a partner of defendant No.1 on the statement of accounts for the period ending 31st March, 2008. The plaintiff has claimed the aforesaid amount of Rs.25,49,432.12p along with interest thereon with effect from 1st April, 2008 at the rate of 18% per annum, as per market rate, practice, usage, custom and contractual rate of interest between the parties. The amount of interes...
H.S.Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
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. A dead horse is being flogged by the petitioner with the hope that the horse would rise and gallop and the petitioner would enjoy a ride. Unfortunately, dead horses do not canter when flogged.2. Posting at HQ IMTRAT in Bhutan is considered to be prestigious and the petitioner applied to be posted at IMTRAT by filing an application on 21.3.2002 which was registered at serial No.272. As per policy in force since the year 2000 the applicants were posted at IMTRAT upon being selected and for which they had to undergo the selection process. Upon being cleared, names were kept as per a list prepared.3. In other words there were two kinds of lists. The first was a list as per serial number of the application received and the second was list of person empanelled to be posted at IMTRAT. It may be noted that persons who were...
Dev Priye Saini Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. Whether the 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 the Digest? Yes The petitioner is the son of Shri N.S.Saini who was working as Assistant Sales Tax Officer in the Sales Tax Department of National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi which was a Group-B Gazetted post. Unfortunately, while still in service Shri N.S.Saini died on January 31, 1998, leaving behind the petitioner who was then 14 years of age, his wife Smt. Santosh Saini who was 45 years of age, and two daughters aged 23 years and 11 years. Consequent upon the untimely death of his father, the petitioner vide an application dated August 28, 1998 addressed to the Commissioner, Sales Tax, applied for appointment as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on compassionate basis. The Commissioner, Sales Tax forwarded his request to the Secretary (Services), Government of NCT of Delhi for consideration. Since the petitioner w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »