Delhi Court February 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.
Vikramjeet Singh Sambyal Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
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. Petitioner is a Major in the Indian Army and is attached to the Army Service Corps. He desired to proceed on deputation under the National Security Guard (NSG) and after interaction with NSG, the Army Authorities relieved the petitioner to join NSG.2. It is not in dispute that the first posting of the petitioner in NSG was as a Squadron Commander but he was subsequently deputed to work as a Team Commander. This petitioner claims was downgrading.3. The response of NSG, as pleaded in paras 4 to 8 of the counter affidavit filed may be reproduced. The same reads as under:-"4. The deponent submits that the petitioners averments regarding his Downgradation from Squadron Commander to Team Commander is factually incorrect. Downgradation is when an individual, who has been absorbed by NSG is stepped down from his present ra...
Sheela Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No be allowed to see the Judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest?1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for grant of bail in FIR No.400/2009 lodged under Sections 302/34 IPC, registered with Police Station: Prashant Vihar, New Delhi. The complainant herein is the brother of the deceased.2. Counsel for the petitioner refers to the order of this Court granting bail to a co-accused on 14.02.2011, in Bail Appln. No.16/2011 and prays that bail be granted to the petitioner on the ground of parity. A Status Report was called for from the State. The same has been filed. As per the Status Report, the undisputed facts of the case are that the deceased Sh.Virender Singh was residing at Rohini along with his family members and ran a printing press. He had a relationship with the petitioner, who was stated to be in the habit ...
Mohd. Usman (Deceased) Thr. Lrs and ors Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No1. The appellant has questioned the order dated 22.04.2010 passed by the ld. ADJ, whereby the ld. ADJ has revoked the probate of the will granted in the year 1987 on the basis of a revocation petition filed by the first respondent in December, 2000. It is submitted that the said revocation petition was not within time and therefore, the revocation petition ought to have been dismissed.2. The only ground taken by the respondent was that a fraud was played upon the court inasmuch as, the appellant while seeking probate of the will of late Khwaja Sayeed-u-ddin had not mentioned the name of his son in the list of the legal heirs when the probate petition was filed by late Mohd.Usman in the year 1984.3. It was the case of Laxmi Devi (predecessor in interest of the respondents) that she purchased 125 sq. yards out o...
Maj.R.K.Sareen Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
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. By May 1992 the appellant had earned promotion as a Major in the Indian Army and was appointed as Presiding Officer of a Board of Officers constituted to take over the possession of buildings constructed by contractors for the Army Aviation Corps at Jhansi.2. In June 1992 the Initiating Officer of the appellant initiated the recording of the Annual Confidential Report (hereinafter referred to as the "ACR") of the appellant for the year 19911992 and graded the appellant Above Average Officer. The problem started for the appellant when Brig.R.Gopal, respondent No.5, the Senior Reviewing Officer of the appellant, downgraded the appellant to High Average Officer and recorded following adverse remarks in the ACR:-"Inflated report by the IO and RO. Sareen is an high average officer. He is excessively obese and must reduc...
National Book Trust Vs. Uma Bansal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
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 issue of the roster point vacancy being debated in the appeal does not even arise for consideration and we proceed to note the relevant facts.2. The respondent had an issue pertaining to the adverse entries contained in her ACR for the year 2003-04 against which she had filed a representation which was allowed on 17.11.2005 and prior thereto a DPC met to consider the departmental candidates working as Assistant Editors for promotion to the post of Editor and selected one Smt. Sushma Sonak, junior to the respondent. On 02.11.2005 Sushma Sonak was issued the letter of promotion. This happened 15 days prior to respondent's representation against adverse entry in her ACR for the year 2003-04 being allowed.3. Sushma Sonak resigned on 24.08.2007 and claiming that the resultant vacancy, on account of the roster being ...
Pushpawati Joshi (Thr. Lrs Chandrakala Joshi and Ors) Vs. Beena Sharma ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order granting probate of the Will dated 03.01.1980 executed by late Shri Harbans Lal Joshi who expired on 05.03.1981 leaving behind 4 sons, two daughters and 1 widow. The grant of probate was opposed by all the 4 sons and his widow vide objection dated 11.12.1984. As per the Will in respect of accommodation available in H.No. C-66, Soami Nagar, New Delhi -17 front portion in its entirety is given to the daughter Mrs. Beena Joshi Sharma except one bed room opposite to kitchen of the said portion. Rear portion consisting of two rooms was given to two sons, namely, Prem Swaroop Joshi & Basant Kumar Joshi, who took one bedroom each along with common corridor & kitchen. 2. Similary, bequeath of some portion of the first floor has been made in favour of ...
Arvind @ Jagdish Kumar Vs. State of the Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No be allowed to see the Judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest?1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for grant of parole for a period of three months to enable him to get proper medical treatment for his parents, to arrange finance for the same and to re- establish social ties with his family members and society.2. Status report was called and the same is placed on record. The State has opposed grant of parole to the petitioner on the ground that on verification, it was found that neither of the parents of the petitioner was suffering from any serious disease. Further, on inquiry, it was found that the petitioner has two married brothers, who are living in the same house with their families and are looking after the parents. He also has two married sisters. Therefo...
Uoi and ors. Vs. Smt. Sudha Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO the Digest?1. The above noted writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 26th March, 2009. This is an application by the petitioners seeking permission to delete the name of the respondent from the wait list of the candidates for compassionate appointment.2. Issue notice to the respondent. Mr. Vijay Singh Charak, Advocate appears for the respondent and accepts notice on her behalf. 3. The case of the applicants is that the husband of the respondent had died on 24th January, 2002, who was employed in the Govt. of India Press, Faridabad. The respondent/non-applicant had sought appointment on the compassionate ground. Since she was not given such appointment for almost three years, she preferred an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in year 2005.4. While contest...
Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs. Mcd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
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 claiming to be owner of part of the property No.178/7,8, Street No.2, Padam Nagar, Kishan Ganj, Delhi had applied to the respondent MCD for permission to raise construction on his part of the property. The said application was rejected. Aggrieved therefrom the petitioner earlier filed W.P.(C) No.13842/2009 in this Court. It was the stand of the counsel for the respondent MCD then that the remedy of the petitioner was under Section 347 B of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 by appealing against the order of rejection and not by way of writ petition. In view of the said submission of the counsel for the respondent MCD, the counsel for the petitioner had then withdrawn W.P.(C) No.13842/2009 with liberty to challenge the order of rejection before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD.2. The petitio...
M/S Aster Publishing Vs. Sh. Niwas Aggarwal and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
1. Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be referred in the Digest? Yes1. The present revision petition under section 25-B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short as "the Act") has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 02.08.2010 passed by Additional Rent Controller (for short as "the Controller") Delhi, whereby leave to defend/contest the eviction petition has been dismissed and an eviction order is passed under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25(B) of the Act against the petitioner in respect of suit premises.2. The facts, necessary to be highlighted in the present petition as alleged by the petitioner/tenant, are that the petitioner/tenant has filed an application under section 25-B of the Act for leave to contest on 27.11.2009 wherein it is also stated that he was not served personally and someone threw summons of the case near his shop on 14.11.2009...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »