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.
Sh.Gurvinder Singh Vs. Ms. Deenar Builders Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
CM No. 19271/2011 (exemption) in CM (M) No. 1214/2011 Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. CM (M) No. 1214/2011 and CM No. 19270/20111 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 07.05.2011 vide which application filed by the defendant under Order 16 Rules 3 & Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') had been dismissed. Record shows that the present suit is a suit for possession, permanent injunction as also for recovery of user charges. Suit had been filed in the year 1996. It was at the stage when the evidence of the defendant was being led itself, the present application under Order 16 Rules 3 & Rule 13 of the Code was filed on 16.09.2009. The averments made in the said application have been perused. It is stated that the plaintiff has not given true answers put by the defendant to him and it was in these circumstances that the defendant was constrained to move an application under the Right to Information Act and certain inf...
Raman Kapoor Vs. O.P.Kapoor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
1. The family dispute relating to Kapoor family was referred to the arbitration of Justice P.K.Bahri (Retired). The interim award was passed on 01.06.2005 and the final award was passed on 23.04.2009. Sh.O.P.Kapoor, the father, along with his sons sought to assail the interim award relating to the claims filed by the appellant. The final award was also assailed by them. The appellant before us filed OMP No.400/2009 seeking modification of the final award dated 23.04.2009 to a limited extent.2. Another two OMPs were filed by the appellant seeking interim measures consequent to passing of the interim and final award.3. All the aforesaid matters were taken up for hearing and as per the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, OMP No.400/2009 was not pressed qua the modification of the final award and was accordingly dismissed vide the order dated 08.06.2011. This order also deals with the other OMPs. The order dated 08.06.2011 partially set aside the interim award dated 01.06.2005 and...
Baij Nath Thakur and ors Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
1. This petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 321/2011, u/s 288/337/338/304A IPC, P.S. Hauz Khas which was registered on the complaint of petitioner No. 1 against petitioner No. 4 and 5.2. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that a compromise has taken place between the parties and therefore petitioner No. 1/complainant and petitioner No. 2 and 3, wives of the deceased persons, are agreed to settle the issue qua the aforesaid FIR and not want to pursue the case any further.3. Petitioner No. 1 is present in person. He has been identified by learned counsel for the petitioner and also by SI Sanjay Sharma. He states that he has no objection if the FIR is quashed.4. Petitioner No. 2 and 3 namely Akhtar Begum, wife of deceased Ali Ahmed and Reimun Khatoon, wife of deceased Mohd. Manjar Aalam are also present in person. They have also been identified by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Additionally, they are also carrying Voter Identity Card No. DL/02/006/0304...
J.N.Uppal Vs. Dr.Harish Uppal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
1. The propensity of real brothers to fight over trifle amounts, keeping in mind the value of the properties in question, has given rise to this first appeal arising from an order dated 10.09.2010 in execution proceedings.2. The parties to the present appeal are progenies of late Dr.D.R.Uppal and Late Smt. Padmavati. A suit No.146/1994 was filed by R-2, daughter, seeking partition of two properties namely 20, Todarmal Road, New Delhi - 110 001 and 9A/50, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005.3. The appellant, the son, also filed a Suit No.528/1994 for partition of the properties, stated to be acquired and purchased by R-1, R-2 and R-5 (son of the pre- deceased daughter) at Delhi, Jaipur and Shimla out of the income accruing from the aforesaid properties. It is the claim of the appellant that a memorandum of family settlement in the hand writing of R-1 was signed on 29.03.1989 recording the factum of an oral partition of the two ancestral properties. That information being conveyed to inc...
Smt. Madhurika Sharma and ors. Vs. Smt. Bhagwati Devi Sharma and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
CM No. 14285/2011 (exemption) in CM (M) No. 885/2011 Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. CM (M) No. 885/20111. The order impugned before this court is the order dated 29.03.2011 had dismissed the application filed of the defendants under Order IX Rule VII of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). This application had been filed by the defendant Nos. 7, 8, 10 and 11; by way of this application defendant Nos. 7, 8, 10 and 11 had sought setting aside ex parte order dated 05.07.1999. This application had been filed after about ten years. Contention in this application is that the applicants/petitioners were housewives and defendant Nos. 7 and 10 are resident of Rajasthan, defendant No. 10 is a resident of Rohini, Delhi and defendant No. 11 is a resident of UP; The applicants had engaged Mr. T.C. Gupta for defending their suit. They were not aware that the suit was not being prosecuted diligently; in fact, an application had been filed by their advoca...
Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Sri Mohan Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
1. Suit No.550/1994 filed by the appellant against the respondent was under Order 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The prayer made in the suit was to pass a preliminary decree in sum of `18,26,014.22 with pendente lite and future interest @ 19.5% per annum with quarterly rest and upon failure to pay the decretal amount within the time stipulated, to sell the mortgaged property.3. In the plaint it was averred that the defendant was an officer in the Establishment Department at the Head Office of the appellant and amongst others, was entrusted with the duty of clearing vouchers pertaining to travelling allowance, medical bills of the employees. It was further pleaded that the defendant was a Class-A Power of Attorney Holder of the Bank and was authorized to issue transfer payment orders and cheques.4. It was alleged that the respondent devised ways and means to cheat the bank and cause illegal loss to the bank. He made interpolations in the record of the bank. He opened fictitious ac...
Sh.Rajinder and ors. Vs. Harsh Vohra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
1. The petitioners, owners of land in question, executed a sale deed dated 07.10.1996 in respect of the land in question and mutation was also carried out in the revenue records in favour of the respondents. The petitioners, however, filed a suit alleging that they have received only part payment under the sale deed and balance consideration was not paid and sought cancellation of documents of title and for them to be declared null and void. Arising from those suit proceedings, a Civil Revision Petition No.183/2007 and FAO No.25/2009 were filed, which were decided by the learned single Judge of this Court on 01.12.2009. The learned single Judge noticed that it is the case of the petitioners that they have agreed to sell the land for higher consideration and understood that they were only signing documents of mortgage and not the sale deed when they executed the documents. There were, in fact, four suits which arose out of the transaction in question as there were four sale deeds. The p...
Romesh Sharma Vs. Cbi.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
1. This is a petition under Section 439 read with Section 436A of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in respect of FIR no.RC1(S) 98/STF/CBI registered by P.S. CBI/STF Delhi in respect of which trial is pending before Sh.K.S.Mohi, ASJ- 3, Saket, New Delhi.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a Helicopter Model Bell 47 G5-VT EAP belonging to M/s Pushak Aviation Pvt. Ltd. having its office at Mumbai was transferred in the name of Sh.H.Suresh Rao on 19.9.94. He got the helicopter made air-worthy and was leasing it on hire for various purposes including spray on the fields, electioneering, etc.3. In February, 1996, Sh.H.Suresh Rao came in contact with the petitioner/Romesh Sharma at Delhi, a resident of C- 30, Mayfair Garden, New Delhi who was also having a farm house in Chattarpur, Delhi. It is alleged that Romesh Sharma, the real brother of the accused Harish Mishra, induced H.Suresh Rao to enter into a pre-dated MOU for sale of the Helicopter in favour of his sole proprietorship conce...
Daya Ram Verma and ors Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of IndiA.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
1. The Respondents filed a complaint before the Learned CMM, Tis Hazari for offences punishable under Section 24(1) and 27 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (in short SEBI Act) against M/s. Master Green Forest Ltd. In the complaint it was alleged that the accused company was operating collective investment scheme and raised a huge amount from the general public in contravention with the SEBI Act and Regulations. Besides the allegations against the company, the allegations against its Directors and promoters who were not arrayed as an accused were that the accused through its promoters/Directors who are the persons in- charge and responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company and all of who actively connived with each other for the commission of the offence. In Para 20 it was further alleged that the accused company and its promoters and Directors in-charge and responsible to the accused company for the conduct of its business were liable for the violation o...
Mangal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27th November, 2009 passed in Sessions Case No.52/2008 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, arising out of FIR No.432/2005 registered at Police Station Kotwali u/s 302/376 IPC wherein the appellant has been convicted for both the offences. The appeal is also directed against the order on sentence dated 3rd December, 2009 whereby the appellant has been sentenced to a term of rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `5000/- and in default of payment, SI for five months for the offence u/s 302 IPC and appellant is further awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for the period of ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for three months for the offence punishable u/s 376 IPC. It is also ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. The benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C has also been given to the appellant by the learned ASJ.2. The case of the pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »