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.
Kuldeep Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
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. Born in a village on 7.6.1985, at the young age of 16 years, the petitioner, his brother Sunil and father Palturam were named as accused for having committed an offence punishable under Section 452/323/504/506 IPC, when the wife of the younger brother of his father lodged a complaint with the police that Palturam and his two sons i.e. Sunil and the petitioner had barged into her house, abused her and threaten to kill her family members and that her son Kiran Kumar was beaten with an iron rod.2. Unfortunately for the petitioner his lawyer seems to be ignorant of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act 2000 and took no defence of the petitioner being a juvenile. Trial continued. Vide judgment and order dated 18.7.2003, the petitioner, his father and brother were acquitted. It is not that the witnesse...
Devender Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
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. 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 a lady named Sheela Gupta(co-accused) who was stated to be in the habit of frequently taking money from the deceased. The complainant was opposed to his brother's relationship with this lady. On the date of the crime, i.e., on 27.1.2009, when the deceased ...
Kamal Kishore Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
1. Whether reporters of the local newspapers be allowed to see the order? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the order should be reported in the Digest? Yes ORDER1. The Petitioner, claiming to be a law abiding citizen, and having retired as a Sergeant from the Indian Air Force after serving 18 years, filed the present writ petition on 24th May 2010 seeking the quashing of the allotment of a shop in the Ganga Complex, Subroto Park, New Delhi in favour of Respondent No. 5, Mr. Puttu Singh, and for a consequential direction to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to allot him the shop in question for the period from 1 st April 2010 to 31st March, 2012.2. The Petitioner had been allotted a shop in the Ganga Complex, Subroto Park, New Delhi for the period 1st April 2008 to 31st March 2010 for running a sweet and milk shop. According to the Petitioner, an advertisement was issued in the newspaper by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (representing the Air Headquarters) and Respondent No.4 [the...
Kamaljeet Singh Vs. Uoi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
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. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The hiatus between what ought to have happened and what actually happened is creating a problem for the petitioner.3. In view of the facts which we would be hereinafter noting and the law on the subject, petitioner would be entitled to relief.4. Holding the post of Deputy Commandant and eligible to be considered for promotion as 2-IC, at the DPC which met on 19.04.2004, petitioner was declared unfit and persons junior to him were promoted.5. Reason why petitioner was declared unfit at the DPC was an adverse remark entry in his ACR for the year 2000-01.6. Not being communicated to him and the adverse remark being taken note of by the DPC, claim of the petitioner in WP(C) No.6269/2006 for review DPC to be held and the un- communicated adverse remark being ignored succeeded, whe...
K.P. Solvex Ltd. Vs. Hyderabad Industries Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
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) 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15.3.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge whereby the suit no. (hereinafter to be referred as the subsequent suit) filed by the appellant- plaintiff(hereinafter to be referred to as the plaintiff) for setting aside of an ex parte decree dated 13th October,1993 passed by this Court against it in suit no.89 of 1987(hereinafter to be referred as the former suit) filed by the respondent no.1 herein(hereinafter to be referred to as the plaintiff of the former suit) for recovery of Rs. 3,75,000/- with interest against the plaintiff and respondents no. 2 and 3 herein, who were impleaded in the former suit as defendants no. 1 and 2 respectively and in the subsequent suit as defendants no. 2 and 3.2. The facts, as per the case of the the pla...
i C Khurana and anr Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR registered against the petitioner with Economic Offences Wing under Section 406, 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. The respondent in this case had alleged that a supplementary agreement to sell dated 23 rd September, 2009 entered into between the parties, subsequent to agreement to sell dated 6th May, 2009, was partially fabricated and forged by the petitioner as the petitioner inserted an additional clause into the agreement dishonestly and fraudulently so as to cheat the respondent of a huge amount of ` 20.00 crore. It was alleged that forged insertion was made without the authority of the complainant in order to cause wrongful loss of ` 20.00 crore to the complainant and wrongful gain to the accused persons. Counsel for the petitioner argued that this FIR ...
The National Assn. of the Deaf Through Its Joint Secy. and anr. Vs. Un ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
1. Whether reporters of the local papers 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. In this public interest litigation, the National Association of the Deaf and another describing themselves as pro bono publico have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of mandamus or appropriate direction commanding the respondents to grant driving licences to deaf persons and further to issue a writ of certiorari for quashing of any policy decision restraining or creating any kind of restriction on the part of the deaf persons to get the driving licences. 2. The factual matrix, as unfurled in the writ petition, are that the petitioner No.1 is a voluntary non-government organization and the petitioner No.2 is a person whose hearing is impaired. The aim of the petitioner No.1 organization is to promote the rights and equality o...
Usha Dewani and anr. Vs. Paras Ram T. Dewani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed Yes to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes1. This appeal arises out of an order dated 06.05.2004 passed by Ld. ADJ in probate case granting probate of the Will dated 20.04.1975 alleged to have been executed by deceased Man Mohan Dewani s/o Sh. Tirath Dass Dewan in favour of the respondent, Sh.Paras Ram Tirath Dewani.2. The appellants are Ms.Usha Dewani widow of Sh.Man Mohan Dewani and his daughter Ms.Shirein.3. The brief facts leading to filing of present appeal are that the testator lived in United States of America with his wife. A daughter was also born to them. He expired on 19.06.1976. The respondent who is the brother of the deceased testator claimed that a Will was executed by the testator on 20.04.1975 appointing the respondent as the sole executor of the Will. A perusal of the Will shows that the testator was the absolute owner of property...
Rahul Yadav and ors. Vs. Cisf and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
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. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Since a common question of law arises for consideration in the three above captioned writ petitions, they are being decided by a common judgment.3. Let us note the facts.4. Rahul Yadav, the writ petitioner of WP(C) No.8094/2010 applied in response to an advertisement issued by the Staff Selection Commission for appointment of Sub-Inspector through the CPO Examination, to be held in the year 2008. He successfully cleared the selection process and on 29.03.2010 a letter provisionally offering appointment was issued to him for being appointed as Sub-Inspector under CISF. On 22.06.2010 the provisional offer of appointment dated 29.03.2010 was withdrawn, stating that on scrutiny of documents produced by him, he was found not suitable to be appointed as Sub- Inspector in CISF. Thou...
Jaypee Bros. Medical Publishers P. Ltd. Vs. the Bank of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
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 Digest?1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs 25,75,186/-. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff-company vide 8 letters dated 10th July, 1992 invited offer from defendant No.1 for forward foreign exchange contracts. No offer for the rate of foreign exchange was communicated to the plaintiff. On 14 th July, 1992, Mr S.K. Gupta of defendant No. 1 informed the plaintiff that the rate of Pound St. would be in the region of Rs 61 to 62 which was not acceptable to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff refused to enter into forward foreign exchange contract with the defendant on 14 th July, 1992. It is further alleged that on 16th July, 1992, Asaf Ali Road Branch of defendant-Bank of India forwarded its counter offer to the plaintiff, offering varying rates of foreign exchange, which were materially different from...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »