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.
Hitesh Kumar Verma Vs. Nav Bahar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-2011
1. These two writ petitions involve more or less similar set of facts and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. W. P. (C) No. 675 of 2011 by Hitesh Kumar, proprietor of M/s Amit Garments challenges an Award dated 22nd May 2010 passed by the Labour Court allowing the claim of the Respondent workman Shri Nav Bahar in DID No. 129 of 2006 and directing the Petitioner management to compensate the workman in the sum of Rs. 75,000/- in lieu of the reinstatement.3. W. P. (C) 929 of 2011 by the same Petitioner challenges the Award dated 22nd May 2010 of the Labour Court allowing the claim of the Respondent workman Shri Chander Pal in DID No. 130 of 2006 and directing the Petitioner to compensate him in the sum of Rs. 75,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.4. The case of both the Respondent workmen was that they were employed as tailors with the Petitioner management. Shri Nav Bahar claimed that he was employed since 1994 whereas Shri Chander Pal claimed that he was employed since 1986.5. ...
Vaidya Jagjit Singh Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-2011
1. The petitioner claims to have been elected as the member, from the State of Punjab, of the Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM) constituted under Section 3 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, in the elections held in the year 2010-11 pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court. This petition has been filed with the grievance that though a meeting of the CCIM is scheduled from 17 th to 19th October, 2011 and invitation thereof has been issued to all the other members so elected, no invitation has been extended to the petitioner. A writ restraining the respondents from preventing the petitioner from participating in the meeting / activities of the CCIM is sought.2. The counsel for the respondent No.2 CCIM, appearing on advance notice, has handed over in the Court an affidavit of objections along with Annexures which is taken on record.3. The counsel for the respondent No.2 CCIM does not controvert that the petitioner has been so elected in the elections held in ...
Surya Prakash Gupta Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-2011
1. The petitioner, a resident of the residential colony of Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, claims rights in land ad-measuring 2 Bighas and 4 Biswas (2200 sq. yds.) in Khasra No.156 situated in village Lado Sarai, Delhi. He admits, that the said land was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide Notification dated 13.11.1959; that a declaration under Section 6 of the Act with respect to the land was notified on 30.03.1967; that upon challenge, the said acquisition was quashed vide order dated 30.11.1970; that thereafter on 13.04.1971 another Notification under Section 4 of the Act with respect to the land was issued followed by declaration under Section 6 on 16.09.1971; that the challenge to the same failed, finally on 24.03.2005.2. The petitioner claims to have "purchased" the said land; neither any date of "purchase" nor any particulars thereof are pleaded; however, the petitioner as annexures to the petition has filed photocopies of Power of Attorney, Will, Memorandum o...
Virpal at Raju at Vira and ors. Vs. the State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2011
1. These three appeals are directed against the judgment dated 11-06-2010 delivered by the learned additional sessions judge-01/South, Patiala house courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.107/2006 arising out of FIR No. 233/06 of police station Malviya Nagar under sections 302/394/34 IPC and sections 216A/411/120B IPC whereby the appellants Virpal @ Raju, Ibrahim @ Guddu and Mohd Anis Ahmed were convicted under sections 394/302/34 IPC. The appellants are also aggrieved by the order on sentence passed on 09-07-2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby they were sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence under section 302/34 IPC and were also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2500/- each, in default of which the defaulting convict was required to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The appellants were also sentenced under section 394 IPC to rigourous imprisonment for 10 years as also to pay a fine of Rs. 2500/- each, in default of which the defaulting convict was to un...
Ranbir Singh Pehelwan Vs. the State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2011
1. These three appeals are directed against the judgment dated 18.09.2009 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.60/2009 arising out of FIR No.78/1997 registered at police station Najafgarh under Section 364-A read with Section 120-B IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The appellants Ranbir Singh Pehelwan, Ved Pal @ Vedu and Ranbir Singh @ Pappu alongwith one Virender Singh @ Gerra were found guilty of having committed the offence under Sections 364-A read with Section 120-B IPC. The appellant Ranbir Singh @ Pappu and the said Virender Singh @ Gerra were also convicted under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. At this juncture, we may point out that initially eight accused had been sent up for trial. The three appellants in the present appeals and Virender Singh @ Gerra, all of whom were convicted and, Rajesh Dahiya, Ranbir Singh son of Shri Jage Ram, Smt Sajjani Devi and Rishikesh, who were acquitted by virt...
Medical Council of India Vs. Teerthanker Mahaveer Inst of Management a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2011
1. Whether Regulation 3(I) in Part II of ‘The Opening of a New or Higher Course of Study or Training (including Post- graduate Course of Study or Training) and Increase of Admission Capacity in any Course of Study or Training (including a Post-graduate Course of Study or Training) Regulations 2000’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘Regulations 2000’) bars a college/institution running Bachelor of Medicine or Bachelor of Surgery Course, to seek increase of seats till recognition is obtained by the institution or college as per the requirement of Sub-Section 1 of Section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act 1956 is the principal question which arose for consideration before the learned Single Judge and the answer being in favour of the writ petitioners, the Board of Governors, in supersession of Medical Council of India, have filed the above captioned appeals, pleading that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is incorrect. A subsidiary question pertaining to the...
Anita Mehra Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2011
1. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to filing of the present petition(s) are that the marriage of Anita Mehra, the petitioner in Crl.M.C. o.2255/2003, and Satish Mehra, the respondent No.2 in Crl.Revision Petition No.304/2003, was solemnized in the year 1980 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. However the relations turned sour between them on or around October 1992 and since then the two are engaged in a series of litigations. Instant petitions are a fall out of one such acrimonious legal battle fought between the two.2. On 06.01.1994 Satish Mehra lodged a complaint with Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police New Delhi, alleging that he and his wife Anita Mehra had jointly invested about `20,00,000/- in 5 Foreign Currency Non- Resident Fixed Deposits (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FCNR FD’). That his father-in-law S.K.Khosla, the petitioner in Crl.Revision No.299/2003, forged his signatures on the receipts and got renewed the said FCNR FDs in the sole name...
Ved Pal at Vedu Vs. the State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2011
1. These three appeals are directed against the judgment dated 18.09.2009 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.60/2009 arising out of FIR No.78/1997 registered at police station Najafgarh under Section 364-A read with Section 120-B IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The appellants Ranbir Singh Pehelwan, Ved Pal @ Vedu and Ranbir Singh @ Pappu alongwith one Virender Singh @ Gerra were found guilty of having committed the offence under Sections 364-A read with Section 120-B IPC. The appellant Ranbir Singh @ Pappu and the said Virender Singh @ Gerra were also convicted under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. At this juncture, we may point out that initially eight accused had been sent up for trial. The three appellants in the present appeals and Virender Singh @ Gerra, all of whom were convicted and, Rajesh Dahiya, Ranbir Singh son of Shri Jage Ram, Smt Sajjani Devi and Rishikesh, who were acquitted by virt...
Arpit Singh Vs. Ggsiu and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2011
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to set aside the order dated 16.12.2010 whereby the migration of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondent University.2. The factual background that has led to the filing of the present petition is that the petitioner was a student of 1st year, B. Tech. in Lord Institute of Technology, Hyderabad and sought migration to respondent No.2 Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Technology which is affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Respondent No.1 herein, based on the No-Objection granted by Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Technology, in the Second Year B.Tech.(Mechanical Engineering) (2nd Shift Course). The said migration of the petitioner was approved by Respondent No.1 University but subject, however, to the completion of formalities detailed in the letter dated 27.8.2010 within a period of a fortnight from the date of the issue of the letter so as to enable the University to is...
Rajendra Kumar Gupta Vs. Sheela Devi.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2011
1. This revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958('the Act' in short) is at the instance of a tenant who has been directed by the Additional Rent Controller to vacate the premises under his tenancy after rejecting his application filed for getting leave to contest the eviction filed against him by his widow-landlady under Section 14-D of the Act .2. The respondent-landlady had sought the eviction of the petitioner- tenant by pleading the following facts in para no.18 of her eviction petition which was filed in August, 2010:"18(a) (1) the petitioner and her Jethani Smt. Rattan Devi purchased a piece of land measuring 200 sq. Yds and constructed 4 shops on the front portion of the premises towards Mandoli Road. The premises bears Municipal no. 1/2321, Mandoli Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110032. Out of these four shops two shops came into share of the petitioner and two shops in the share of Smt. Rattan Devi as per verbal family settlement made about 40 years ba...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »