Delhi Court February 2011 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2011 Page 1 of about 226 results (0.022 seconds)Ram Chander Singh Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
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. Having joined as a constable and earned promotion as Head Constable, petitioner was attached with the battalion posted for duties at BOP Kalyani. Duties were assigned to him at the frontier posts. As per the department the petitioner was caught red-handed by the Joint Additional Director (G) Sh.Saroj Kumar Mishra and his team soon after the petitioner had statedly received bribe in sum of `400/- on 13.11.1998. It is actually a case of a trap.2. Complying with the procedures of the BSF Act 1968 Deputy Commandant Sh.S.K.Goel prepared the Record of Evidence and submitted the same to the Commandant, who on perusal of the Record of Evidence framed a charge under Section 46 of the BSF Act as under:-"BSF ACT COMMITTING A CIVIL OFFENCE THAT SEC-46 IS TO SAY, BEING A PUBLIC SERVANT, ACCEPTING FROM ANY PERSON, FOR HIMSELF, A...
Tag this Judgment!Kalpana Chawla College of Education for Women and ors. Vs. National Co ...
Court: Delhi
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 petitions entail a common question of law which can be formulated as under:Whether under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, the Regional Committee has any power to inspect an Institution granted recognition under the said Act or whether the power of such inspection is only with the Council constituted under the said Act.2. It is the contention of the petitioners that under the Act, the power to inspect is in the Council only and the Regional Committees have not been empowered to carry out inspection after recognition has been granted to an Institution. The respondents National Council for Teacher Education and the Northern Regional Committee being the respondents in each of the petitions, contend otherwise.3. The petitioners contend:A. That the Act provides for inspection only unde...
Tag this Judgment!Joginder Singh and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
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. HC Sunheri Singh In-charge of PCR vehicle 'Victor-69' had stationed the vehicle at a spot near NDSC Part II when at around 10:10 PM on 20.6.1991 he received information that a quarrel had taken place at the jhuggi complex at Gautam Nagar. He relayed the information over the wireless to PS Defence Colony at which DD No.30 was recorded at the police station at 10:30 PM. Proceeding to the jhuggi complex, HC Sunheri Singh found two persons lying injured; namely, Om Prakash (hereinafter referred to the as the 'deceased') and Kailash (hereinafter referred to as the 'injured eye witness'), both of whom he removed to All India Institute of Medical Sciences where Om Prakash was declared brought dead and Kailash was admitted for treatment. In the meanwhile, SI Mahavir Singh, ASI Prem Chand and Const.Sultan Singh were deputed ...
Tag this Judgment!Gori Madan Vs. the District and Sessions Judge and ors.
Court: Delhi
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. It was the year 1999. In the Office of the District & Sessions Judge Delhi 2 posts of Assistant Librarian and Information Officers were required to be filled up on ad-hoc basis. The reason was that the posts were newly created and the Recruitment Rules had yet to be notified.2. Vide circular dated 22.2.1999, applications were invited from the officials working in the Office of the District & Sessions Judge Delhi for filling up 2 posts of Assistant Librarian and Information Officers on purely ad-hoc basis. It was indicated that officials having experience in the line will be given preference. It was indicated that the pay-scale of the post in question is `6,500-10,500/-. It was further indicated that officers who were willing to be considered and had rendered minimum 10 years regular service in the department may su...
Tag this Judgment!State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi Vs. Sanjay
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers Yes. may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes.3. Whether the judgment should be Yes. reported in the Digest?1. In this petition, the State seeks leave to appeal against a judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 28.03.2008 by which the respondent was acquitted of the charge of having committed offences under Sections 353/302/376/201 IPC.2. The facts necessary for the purposes of this order are that according to the prosecution, on 24.11.2004, Shri Mukesh S/o Shri Upender Jha lodged a complaint in Police Post Prem Nagar, regarding the kidnapping of his four year old daughter namely "S". He said that she left the house at about 5 PM, the previous day, on 23.11.2004 and had not returned since then. Accordingly a first information report (FIR No. 1418/2004) under section 363 IPC was registered by police. On 24.11.2004, an unidentified body of a girl was found in the lake near Railway Stati...
Tag this Judgment!Jinender Kumar and ors. Vs. Jaswant Singh (Decd.) Thr. Lrs.
Court: Delhi
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. This appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved of the order dated 28.07.2010 whereby the objections filed by the appellant to the execution of the final decree passed in favour of the respondents on 09.08.1982 which decree was also confirmed by this Court vide its order dated 26.11.2009 have been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The learned ADJ has taken note of the plea of the parties on law as well as on facts in the impugned order.2. Before the learned ADJ, the respondents had opposed the objections filed by the appellant both on facts as well as in law. The averments made by the respondents have been taken note of by the learned ADJ in paragraph 5 and 6 of the impugned order which are reproduced hereunder:"5. Present objections are not maintainable on the law and facts of the case and are liable to b...
Tag this Judgment!Sangeeta and anr. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
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 in the Digest? Yes1. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Smt. Sangeeta, petitioner no.1 in the writ petition praying for recall of the order dated 19th August, 2009 passed by this court on the ground that the same was obtained under fraud.2. The application is premised on the contention that the writ petition was a result of fraud played on this court by the respondent no.2 and his family. The applicant has stated that on 22nd April, 2009, in order to get the FIR registered by the police against the petitioner no.2 quashed, she was taken away by him with his relatives to the office of the Registrar (Hindu Marriage), Pauri Garhwal, Uttrakhand and a marriage was registered after preparing false and forged documents. The petitioner states that her signatures on several d...
Tag this Judgment!Ballabh Das Aggarwal (Decd.) Vs. Uoi and ors
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be Yes allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Yes the Digest?1. Both these appeals seek enhancement of claim towards rent/compensation of the property bearing No.4, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to the said property) requisitioned by the Government for running its offices for different periods in accordance with the provisions contained under the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").2. Briefly stating the facts of this case are that the said property measuring about 13485 sq. ft. was first requisitioned by the Delhi Administration on 07.08.1968 for housing offices of CPWD. On 15.06.1974, the said property was de-requisitioned and to determine the compensation to be paid to the appellants for the aforesaid period, Shri P.L.Singla, ADJ was appointed as Sole Arbitrator. By his award dated 30.0...
Tag this Judgment!Anuj Kumar and anr. Vs State
Court: Delhi
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. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 24.07.1998, appellants Ajit Singh and Anuj Kumar have been convicted for the offence of having murdered Sushma Saluja (herein after referred to as the "Deceased"), for which offence they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine in sum of Rs.15,000/- each; in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. The case set up by the prosecution against the appellants was that Vijay Kumar Saluja PW-1, the husband of the deceased, was working on the post of Assistant Engineer in Delhi Development Authority. On 26.07.1989 at about 10.15 A.M. Vijay Kumar left his house for office leaving behind his wife i.e. the deceased alone in the house and returned to his house in the evening at about 07.00 P.M. On returning to his house, Vijay Kumar was surprise...
Tag this Judgment!Wing Commander (Dr.) Sushil Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
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) ORDER1. These two review applications have been filed in a disposed of writ petition. Review Application No. 1/2007 was filed by the petitioner who had filed the writ petition(hereinafter to be referred to as the writ petitioner) for quashing the order of his suspension dated 30.05.2003 as well as the charge-sheet dated 28.08.2003 given to him by the Indian Council of Historical Research(ICHR in short) where he was working as a Director. Review Application No.41/2007 was filed on behalf of ICHR which was arrayed as respondent no.2 in the writ petition. Both had sought review of the judgment dated 20th December,2006 whereby the writ petition was allowed and the impugned suspension order as well as the charge-sheet were quashed by this Court.2. The writ petitioner had challenged his suspension as well as ...
Tag this Judgment!