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.
Puran Singh Vs. Mcd and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
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 in each of these three petitions claims to be street vendor and they claim to have been vending for the last 25-40 years from E- 2, Bagh Diwar, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110 052. They further claim that they were sought to be evicted from the said site against allotment of alternative tehbazari sites; they further claim that in accordance with the then Policy of the year 1992, they applied for alternative sites and each of them were allotted alternative sites at different locations and letters of provisional allotment also issued to them but till date the possession of the alternative tehbazari sites has not been given to them. They have filed this petition to restrain the respondents i.e. the MCD, the Police authorities and the Govt. of NCT of Delhi from interfering with their continuing to carry...
Const. Jaibir Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
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. Pertaining to an incident which took place at the BSF Camp at Cooch Behar on 11.5.2003, 3 constables of BSF were issued a charge as under:-"The accused No.88433879 CT B.A.Rao (accused No.1), No.90006608 CT Jaibir Singh (accused No.2) and NO.90006597 CT Satpal Singh (accused No.3) of Bn BSF attached with 1st Bn BSF are charged with:-(FIRST CHARGE) USE OF CRIMINAL FORCE BSF ACT Sec 20(a) In that they, At SHQ BSF Cooch Behar, Azad Nagar campus at about 2000 hrs on 11/05/03 struck with their fists on the face and neck of No.80005104 HC (CHM) Nizamuddin of 109 Bn BSFSECOND CHARGE INTOXICATION BSF ACT Sec 26In that they, At SHQ BSF Cooch Behar Azad Nagar Campus at about 2000 hrs on 11/05/03 found in a state of intoxication.2. As per BSF Act and the Rules Deputy Commandant V.K.Singh was required to prepare the record of i...
Kamla Devi Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
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, who is the widow of late Mukhtiar Singh, employed with ITBP as a Head Constable, has claimed multifarious reliefs against 3 respondents. Her first claim is to be released Liberalized Family Pension; second claim is to ex- gratia payment under a policy decision taken by the Government of Haryana and the third claim is to ex-gratia payment under a policy decision taken by the State of Jammu & Kashmir.2. It is apparent that the first relief claimed is against the Union of India, the second is against the State of Haryana and the third against the State of Jammu & Kashmir.3. Factual backdrop leading to the claim is not in dispute. Attached to the 5th Battalion, ITBP, which was stationed near Pantha Chowk, Srinagar, while on duty at the Unit Quarter Guard on 15.6.1999, late Mukhtiar Singh suffered Myocar...
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
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, Rakesh Kumar was employed as a Constable in the Border Security Force and was attached to the 46th Bn. which was stationed at Cooch Behar, West Bengal in June 2007. On 20th December 2007, the petitioner was deployed at the Border Outpost (BOP) at Nauhati, which was a platoon post, when at about 18:15 hours, along with Head Constable Y.N.Dwivedi the petitioner went outside the precincts of the camp without taking permission from any superior officer and proceeded to a village nearby where the petitioner got into a difficult situation with the civilians and was detained by them. Information reached the senior officers at the camp which was passed on to the Commandant Shri R.C.Sharma who proceeded to the village and rescued the petitioner who was confined in a house with agitated villagers around the h...
Ajay Bijli Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
1. The Petitioner challenges an order dated 27th July 2005 passed by the Land and Development Office (L&DO;), Respondent No. 2, rejecting the Petitioners application for conversion for the reasons that the Property at Shop No. 232, Kamla Market, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to property in question) was re-entered and that the application for conversion was signed by a person "who is not eligible for conversion."2. On 21st May 1979 a perpetual lease deed was executed in favour of one Shri Amar Nath in respect of the property in question. A conveyance deed was executed in favour of Shri Amar Nath on 28th February 1984 and was also duly registered on 7th April 1984.3. Shri Amar Nath executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) and Special Power of Attorney (SPA) both dated 15th March 1990 in favour of Mr. K.M. Bijli father of the Petitioner. The GPA and SPA were registered. By a registered will dated 15th March 1990 Shri Amar Nath bequeathed the property in question in favour of the Peti...
Gulshan Satija Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
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 the year 2007 the petitioner was posted as Sub- Inspector in Railway Protection Force (hereinafter referred to as "RPF").2. On 09.05.2007 a lady named Hina @ Sabiha (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) made a complaint against the petitioner to the Station House Officer, PS Bhajanpura Delhi, inter-alia, stating that she was married to one Arif Khan and three sons were born to her out of the said wedlock. Her relations with her husband turned sour as he used to beat her after getting drunk. In March 1999 she came into contact with the petitioner who was her neighbour. Taking advantage of herdisturbed condition, the petitioner lured her into having a relationship with him and induced her to divorce her husband on the assurance that he would marry her and also adopt her children. The petitioner also used to...
Shri Pankaj Mohan Associates and anr. Vs. Secretary Railway Board and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
1. The Petitioners are entities that have taken on lease parcel space in brake vans/parcel vans/Assistant Guards Cabin in the trains runs by the Indian Railways.2. The controversy concerns the weighment by the Railways of consignments loaded by the Petitioners on the parcel vans (hereinafter referred to as VPH). This is a matter of concern to the Petitioners since overloading of VPH attracts severe penalties. Where the overloading exceeds a margin of 5% on three occasions it can entail the cancellation of the lease itself.3. The weight of an empty VPH is known as its tare weight which is usually stenciled on the VPH itself. Weighment takes place at the time of loading of the consignment on to the VPH. The Railways are entitled to re-weigh the consignments at any station enroute using an in-motion weighbridge. On detection of overloading, the Railways usually collect from the Petitioners, at the destination point and prior to delivery the excess freight charges and also the penalty for ...
Shoghi Communications Ltd Vs. Union of India and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
1. This is the second round of litigation concerning the blacklisting of the Petitioner by an order dated 9th July 2005 issued by the Directorate General of Military Intelligence (DGMI) and the consequential order dated 19th September 2005 issued by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) stating that on advice from the National Security Council Secretariat "it would be desirable to avoid any contact with M/s Shogi Communications Ltd (SCL)" and Mr. Harish Gupta.2. Information was received from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on 11th May 2005 about Mr. Harish Gupta, Director (R&D;) of the Petitioner SCL having been chargesheeted in CBI case No. RC 9(S)/96-DLI for offences under Section 420 read with Section 511 IPC and Section 469 and 471 IPC in 1996. The said communication pointed out that the allegation against Mr. Harish Gupta was that "he forged/used an End User Certificate purported to have been issued by Communication Directorate of NSG for importing two systems T-1285 Customs Act...
M C Sharma Vs. Uoi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
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. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. After initially reckoning qualifying service, for purpose of pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner as 27 years, 1 month and 16 days, the respondents corrected themselves by treating qualifying service as 30 years, 5 months and 10 days.3. It is not being disputed by the respondents that full pension has to be paid to all those who have rendered 33 years' qualifying service.4. But the issue between the parties is that, as per the petitioner since he superannuated while holding the post of Commandant i.e. on attaining the age of 55 years for purposes of full pension the qualifying service has to be reckoned as 30 years and not 33 years for which stand the petitioner relies upon various decisions of this Court where view taken was that 33 years' qualifying service for ful...
Rajesh Mehra and ors. Vs. B.S.E.S.Yamuna Power Ltd.and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
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 fourteen petitioners claim to be having their shops at Ajmal Khan Road Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. They filed this writ petition averring that the works, then, at the time of filing of this writ petition in September, 2010 being carried out by the respondent no.1 of laying of electricity cables for supply of electricity, including to the shops of the petitioners, was being carried out in a dangerous manner. It was pleaded that the electricity cables were being laid in the sewer/water drains of the respondent no.2 Delhi Jal Board (DJB) and which was likely to result in leakage of electricity. It was also contended that the junction boxes were being installed between entrances to the two shops, also posing a hazard.2. The wit petition came up before this Court on 8th September, 2010. The counsel for th...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »