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.
Rajiv Bahl and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
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?1. The present appeal arises out of a judgment dated 13.05.2007 delivered by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in Probate Case No.65/2006, whereby the probate has been granted in favour of the respondent of the Will dated 12.08.1986 (Ex.P-1) and the Codicil dated 03.07.1991 (Ex.P-2). By the impugned order the Additional District Judge has disbelieved the Codicil dated 03.07.1991 (Ex.OW1/4) of the Will relied upon by the appellants holding that the said Codicil was not a genuine Codicil as propounded by the appellants.2. Appellants are claiming succession of the property left by Smt.Ram Piari on the basis of the Will (Ex.P-1) and the Codicil to the said Will dated 03.07.1991 (Ex.OW1/4), whereas the respondents are relying upon the Will dated 12.08.1996 and Codicil dated 03.07.1991 (Ex.P-2).3. Smt. Ram Piari, the Exec...
Mr. Ajit Kumar Datta Vs. Shri M.M. Banerjee and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
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 Digest?1. No reply has been filed. Vide this application, defendant No.1 is seeking an injunction against creation of any third party interest in the first floor of J-1981, Chittranjan Park, New Delhi, which is the suit property in this case. Admittedly, the plaintiff is in physical possession of the aforesaid portion of the property. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant No.1, who is the original owner of plot No.J-1981, Chittranjan Park, New Delhi offer to grant him a license to enter upon, use and occupy the plot owned by him for his residence and consequently to construct a single storey house on that plot. It is further alleged that the plaintiff, acting in furtherance of license granted by defendant No.1 entered into possession of the aforesaid plot and raised construction of ground floor on his own funds. It...
Cinerama Private Ltd. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
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 the Digest?1. The question for consideration is whether the respondent NDMC, for the purposes of assessment of rateable value / property tax, amalgamate more than one adjoining flats owned by the same assessee in a multi- storeyed building, resulting in a higher taxation burden on the assessee than if the flats had been assessed separately. The petitioner having failed in convincing the Assessor & Collector of the respondent NDMC and the Additional District Judge in appeal has preferred this petition. Notice of the petition was issued and the petitioner granted time to deposit the differential in tax. The same stands deposited. The counsel for the petitioner has informed that the excess liability owing to amalgamation so effected by the respondent NDMC is of approximately `6,00,000/- and which amount would be refundab...
Sub Insp. (Min) S.Bhaskaran 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. Enrolled as a Constable (GD) with BSF on 11.9.1979, petitioner was re-mustered as Clerk and earned promotion to the rank of ASI (Clerk) on 27.3.1986. He earned further promotion to the rank of Sub-Inspector (Clerk) on 14.2.1996.2. On 27.12.1995, BSF issued an office memorandum informing that BSF personnel who have completed 10 years service may seek resignation; expressly informing that service pension under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules 1969 would be paid.3. Petitioner resigned from service pursuant to the said office memorandum and was sanctioned service pension with effect from 1.4.1996, which was suddenly stopped in July 2001, on the stand taken by BSF that having not completed 20 years service no pension could be paid since Rule 49 of the CCS Pension Rules 192 stipulated 20 years as the minimum qualifying service.4...
Gurcharan Singh Arora @ Bhapaji Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may Yes be allowed to see the Judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be Yes reported in the Digest?1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for quashing of the order dated 01.07.2010 passed by the learned ASJ, dismissing the revision petition preferred by him against the order dated 22.01.2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, whereunder charge was framed against the petitioner under Section 406 IPC, with an alternative charge under Section 420 IPC. 2. In the complaint dated 18.09.2007, the complainant had alleged that the petitioner/accused had assured her of a shop in Chandni Chowk, on payment of an amount of `12,90,000/-. However once such an amount was paid to the petitioner, he avoided meeting the complainant and allegedly threatened her when she tried to approach him for return of the amount paid. After the investigation was c...
Sh. Dev Dutt Sharma Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others
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 XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of Rs.20,29,752/-. The suit is based on the bills submitted by the plaintiff to the defendant in respect of the work executed by him for the defendant.2. The plaintiff submitted a tender for providing RMC from Mithapur Chowk to Village Hari Nagar on main Jaitpur Road, which was accepted by the defendant vide acceptance letter dated 31st March, 2005. The work order dated 18th August, 2005 was issued to the plaintiff after deposit of performance guarantee by the plaintiff. An agreement, thereafter, was executed between the parties on 30 th August, 2005. On completing the execution of the work, the plaintiff submitted the first RA bill for Rs.11,53,978/-. A sum of Rs.1,38,840/- was deducted from that bill and the bill was passed...
Resident Welfare Asscn. Guru Nanak Pura Vs. M.C.D. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
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?RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. The petition was filed impugning the Resolution no.713 dated 13th November, 2002 of the Standing Committee of the respondent no.1 MCD by which two residential plots bearing no.E-73 & E-72 were incorporated in the Layout Plan of colony of Guru Nanak Pura, Jail Road, New Delhi, on land which in the earlier layout plan sanctioned vide Resolution no.198 dated 16 th August, 1979 was shown as a park. The petitioner also sought the relief of restraining the respondents MCD and DDA from sanctioning any building plan for construction on the two plots so carved out. W.P.(C) 9077/2005Page 1 of 42. Notice of the petition was issued and the respondents directed to ensure that the use of the two plots in question is maintained as per the Layout Plan. The order dated 23rd November, 2005 records that ...
Naresh Kumar 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. The petitioner, Naresh Kumar was holding the post of a Constable in the Border Security Force when on 8.10.2007 at the Border outpost Asmeralga he allegedly picked up an unnecessary quarrel with HC Onkar Chand and assaulted him.2. The Commandant Vineet Kumar of the Unit, to which the petitioner was attached directed a Record of Evidence to be prepared by the 2nd-In-Command, Bhagwan Singh 2-IC, who after putting the petitioner to notice of the two charges i.e. of assaulting HC Onkar Chand (first charge) and using threatening language against his superiors (second charge) completed the proceedings pertaining to Record of Evidence and during said period recorded the statements of various witnesses which, learned counsel for the petitioner concedes establishes that as per the charge on 8.10.2007 at around 5:00 PM the p...
Santosh Kumar 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. In view of the principle of law deducible from the decision of the Supreme Court reported as 2009 (13) SCC 311 R.R.Pillai v. CO, HQ Southern Air-Command & Ors. the writ petition has to be dismissed.2. In said decision it was held that employment under Unit run canteens in Army, Navy and Air Force is not public employment i.e. the employees cannot be treated as civilian employees for the reason sine qua non to be treated as civilian employees of the Union was the funding of the Unit from the Consolidated Fund of India and this not being so, notwithstanding public funds being utilized, the employees of the canteens would not be government employees.3. Petitioner was an employee of the Indian Naval Benevolent Association a society registered under the Societies Registration Act with the object of providing group insur...
Phool Chand and anr. Vs. State of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?(No)2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?(No)3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?(No) 1. The petitioner no.1 is the unfortunate father of a daughter named Sushma and grand-father of a tiny girl Tanu while the petitioner no.2 is the brother of Sushma and uncle of Tanu, both of whom had got burnt on 2nd December, 2004, which happened to be the day of fifth wedding anniversary of Sushma who was married to respondent no.2 herein. The incident in which the mother and daughter had got burnt and which incident had taken the lives of both of them had taken place inside the matrimonial home of Sushma in village Tauru in District Gurgaon. Since the petitioners had felt that the deceased Sushma had been killed by her in-laws to satisfy their greed for dowry they had complained to the police and a criminal case was registered for murder and dowry death and due course the respondents 2-4 herein were ini...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »