Delhi Court October 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.
Ankur Sen Vs. Cbse
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2011
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to direct the respondent CBSE to allow him to appear in the compartmental examination in Mathematics (additional subject) which was scheduled for 16.7.2011.2. Facts, succinctly stated, are that the petitioner appeared in CBSE Class XII Examination held in the month of March 2011 and was declared ‘Pass’ but failed in 6th (additional) subject, i.e. Mathematics. It is the case of the petitioner that he had appeared in various entrance examinations, such as National Aptitude Test for Architecture, AIEEE (Architecture) and for other private colleges where he had secured good rank and if he is not allowed to appear in the compartmental examination in his 6th (additional) subject of mathematics in this year itself, then he would lose a chance to get admission in many prestigious courses. It is also the case of the petitioner that he was permitted to appear in the said compartm...
Roshan Lal and anr., Pramod Malik, Verinder Singh, Harmesh Lal and anr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
1. The counsel who appears for the petitioners in all the petitions states that the controversy in all the writ petitions is identical and has argued with respect to W.P.(C) No. 2759/2007. The petitions impugn the Notification dated 6th September, 2006 of the respondent no.1 Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MoPNG), Govt. of India; the petitioners aver that the said Notification though not applicable to the petitioners' Retail Outlets/Petrol Pumps, is being wrongly applied to the petitioners. The petitions also seek to restrain the respondent no.2 IBP Company Ltd. (IBP) from terminating/cancelling the petitioners' Retail Outlets/Petrol Pumps on the basis of the said Notification dated 6th September, 2006. Alternatively, the petitions seek surrender of the land underneath the said Retail Outlets/Petrol Pumps leased out to the respondent no.2 IBP and delivery of possession thereof. 2. Notice of the petitions was issued and parties directed to maintain status quo qua allotment, posse...
Sapna Talwar and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
1. These two appeals are directed against impugned judgment dated 08.04.2009 and subsequent order on sentence date 20.04.2009 delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, North East District, Delhi in case No. 50/2006, FIR No. 191/2002, P.S. Vivek Vihar, whereby the appellants Sapna Talwar and Satyajeet were convicted under Section 302 IPC and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life, they were also convicted under Section 365 IPC and were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for five years and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Further, appellants Sapna Talwar and Satyajeet were also convicted under Section 201 IPC and were to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for one and a half months. Appellant Yunus was only convicted for an offence under Section 120 B IPC. In addition, Sapna Talwar and Satyajeet have also been sentenced under Sect...
Pradeep Sharma Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
*% +IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIJudgment delivered on 12.10.2011 CRL.A. 357/2008 - versus AppellantRAVI KANT SHARMASTATERespondentAdvocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Sushil Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Mr Sudarshan Rajan and Md. Qamar Ali For the Respondent : Mr Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel for the State with Mr Kushagra Arora, Ms Laxmi Chauhan, Mr Harsh Prabhakar and Mr Mohit MudgilAND + CRL.A. 486/2008 - versus STATE Respondent AppellantSHRI BHAGWAN SHARMAAdvocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Mr T.S. Ahuja, Mr Madhav Khurana, Mr Neeraj Gaur & Mr Amit Sharma For the Respondent : Mr Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel for the State with Mr Kushagra Arora, Ms Laxmi Chauhan, Mr Harsh Prabhakar and Mr Mohit MudgilAND + CRL.A. 396/2008 - versus AppellantSATYA PRAKASH SHARMACRL.A. Nos.357/08, 486/08, 396/08, 338/08, 751/09 & 752/09Page 1 of 84STATERespondentAdvocates who appeared in this case: For the Appe...
Shri Bhagwan Sharma Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
1. These six appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 18.03.2008 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi whereby the appellants Ravi Kant Sharma, Shri Bhagwan, Satya Prakash and Pradeep Sharma were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 302 IPC for hatching a criminal conspiracy to kill Shivani Bhatnagar (deceased), who was actually killed by Pradeep Sharma in execution of the said conspiracy. The other accused were Ved Prakash Sharma and Ved Prakash @ Kalu, who were acquitted of all charges. The State has preferred two appeals (Crl. A. 751/2009 & Crl. A. 752/2009) in respect of Ved Prakash Sharma and Ved Prakash @ Kalu against the said acquittals. The impugned judgment dated 18.03.2008 was delivered in Sessions Case No. 14/2006 and arose out of the FIR No. 21/1999 under Sections 302/201/403/404/411/ 419/392/397/120-B/34 IPC registered at Police Station Mandawali on 23.01.1999.2. All the convicted persons were,...
Ravi Kant Sharma Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
1. These six appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 18.03.2008 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi whereby the appellants Ravi Kant Sharma, Shri Bhagwan, Satya Prakash and Pradeep Sharma were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 302 IPC for hatching a criminal conspiracy to kill Shivani Bhatnagar (deceased), who was actually killed by Pradeep Sharma in execution of the said conspiracy. The other accused were Ved Prakash Sharma and Ved Prakash @ Kalu, who were acquitted of all charges. The State has preferred two appeals (Crl. A. 751/2009 & Crl. A. 752/2009) in respect of Ved Prakash Sharma and Ved Prakash @ Kalu against the said acquittals. The impugned judgment dated 18.03.2008 was delivered in Sessions Case No. 14/2006 and arose out of the FIR No. 21/1999 under Sections 302/201/403/404/411/419/392/397/120-B/34 IPC registered at Police Station Mandawali on 23.01.1999.2. All the convicted persons were, ...
Chander Meenakshi Vs. Dda and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
1. The 3 appellants have a grievance pertaining to DDA deferring or rejecting their application(s) for setting up a petrol pump on the subject lands acquired by the appellants. The battle has been lost before the learned Single Judge when writ petition filed by appellants Chander Meenakshi and Yogesh Paliwal were dismissed vide order dated 17.1.2011 and the writ petition(s) filed by appellant Tara Chand was dismissed vide order dated 29.3.2011; which order has simply followed the reasoning contained in the order dated 17.1.2011. 2. The legal issue which arises for consideration in the 3 appeals was settled by the predecessor Division Bench as per order dated 26.7.2011,0 wherein it was recorded that the issue falling for consideration in the appeals is whether establishment of petrol pumps in Delhi is covered by paragraphs 12.12.1 and 12.12.2 of the ‘Master Plan of Delhi 2021’ and not by the regulations framed in the year 2005. 3. Suffice would it be to state that the appell...
Rajbir Pal and anr. Vs. Kanwar Pratap Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
1. In this petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958(„the Act’ in short) the petitioners-tenants challenge the legality of the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller dismissing his application for grant of leave to contest the eviction petition filed against them by their landlord, the respondent herein, in respect of premises under their tenancy and consequential eviction order passed against them. 2. The respondent-landlord had pleaded the facts in his eviction petition based on which eviction of the petitioners-tenants from the tenanted premises was sought and the relevant averments are re-produced below: "1.The petitioner is the owner/landlord having inherited the suit premises from his late father Ch. Surat Singh by virtue of the will executed by him. However, the petitioner who was looking after and managing the suit property on behalf of his father had inducted the respondents as tenants in the suit premises comprising of one big room...
Pramod Malik Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
* +IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 12th October, 2011 W.P.(C) No. 2762/2007%PRAMOD MALIK.......PetitionerThrough: Mr. Sanat Kumar, Ms. Poonam Solanki & Mr. Sumeet Anand, Adv.Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .......RespondentsThrough: Ms. Mala Narayan, Mr. Rahul Narayan & Mr. Shiv Shankar, Advs. for R-2CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may Not necessary be allowed to see the judgment? 2. 3. To be referred to the reporter or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Not necessary Not necessaryRAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. For judgment, see W.P.(C) 2759/2007 titled Roshan Lal & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr..RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) OCTOBER 12, 2011 bsWP(C) No. 2762/07Page 1 of 1...
Rakesh Kulhari Vs. Central Industrial Security Force
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
1. The petitioner was enrolled as a constable with Central Industrial Security Force in the year 1991 and was detailed at CISF unit B.S.P. Bhilai. Ct.D.K.Jaina was in-charge of the dry canteen and was responsible for selling the food stuff kept there to the force personnel of the unit concerned. A complaint was made to the Commandant of the unit informing that while receiving ration, the petitioner misbehaved with Ct.D.K.Jaina and assaulted him by pulling his testicles and punching him on the face and chest. 2. Taking cognizance of the complaint received the Commandant caused a preliminary inquiry to be made at which 4 persons; namely, Ct.D.K.Bahera, Ct.D.K.Jaina, HC S.K.Paul and L/Nk. S.K.A.Samad were examined and relevant would it be to note that during preliminary inquiry Ct.D.K.Bahera stated that on 21.4.1996 he saw the petitioner slap and punch Ct.D.K.Jaina on his chest at the dry canteen and he reported the matter to GD S.S.Rajan. Ct.D.K.Jaina stated that he was giving ration to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »