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.
Sunil Kumar Sharma Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
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.58/2009 lodged under Sections 302/394 IPC, registered with Police Station: Connaught Place, New Delhi.2. Notice was issued on the present petition on 13.07.2010, when, in view of the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the medical condition of the petitioner ought to be ascertained, learned APP for the State was directed to file a Status Report, as to the mental condition of the petitioner, which was required to be submitted by IHBAS, Shahdara. On 18.08.2010, the nominal roll of the petitioner was forwarded and on the said date, counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner had been admitted in IHBAS, Shahdara on 04.08.2010. As a result, the Medical Superin...
Sudhir Gensets Ltd Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
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 arises out of order dated 05.05.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge Delhi dismissing the objections filed by the appellant to the award dated 01.05.2007. By the impugned order the Court while dismissing the objections upheld the findings returned by the Arbitral Forum that it was the appellants, who were responsible for having delayed the supply and installation of the Gen-sets beyond the time limit and that the respondents could not have been blamed for the same as was pleaded by the appellants before the Arbitrator and in the Lower Court. The Additional District Judge has also not agreed with the appellants that the recovery of a sum of Rs 10,77,714/- by the respondents as Liquidated damages by invoking clause 13 of STCC by deducting the said amount out of dues payable was not in v...
Vargas Joseantonia Mauricio Vs. Dri
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
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?ORDER1. This application under Section 439 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner by the accused/ petitioner who is involved in a case under NDPS Act and from whom 11.976 kg of heroin was recovered.2. The only ground taken by the petitioner/applicant for grant of bail is that the applicant in his statement under Section 67 of NDPS Act has stated that two suitcases from which heroin was recovered were handed over to him by a person Sunny whose address in India he did not know. Sunny met him in Jalandhar, Punjab in Radisson Hotel and became his friend and while he was leaving for London, he handed over to him two suitcases and asked him to hand over the same to his sister in London. He had met Sunny for the first time in Jalandhar. He agreed to deliver suitcases for no consideration. Sunny had dropped him at Delhi by a cab ...
Harinder Singh @ Tinu Vs. the State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
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 application for bail has been made on behalf of Harinder @ Tinu who is brother of husband of deceased and has been booked under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 and Section 498A IPC on the basis of statement made by the injured, who died later on, to SDM. Relevant portion of statement of injured/deceased is reproduced hereunder: "I was married to Navinder Singh in 1999. I have a son 08 years old, whose name is Harshman Singh. On ground floor my father-in-law, mother-in-law and devar (brother-in-law) lived while we lived on first floor, second floor was lying vacant and on third floor my jeth (brother-in-law) and jethani (sister-in- law) were living. My father-in-law and mother-in-law used to tell me that I should go away from home. My husband used to beat me. My husband was not harassing me for dowry. Sometimes he ...
Sanjeevan Medical Research Centre (Private) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
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. By this petition, the petitioners have assailed order dated 4th June, 2010 passed by the learned MM taking cognizance of the offence under Section 304-A IPC against the petitioners on complaint made by respondents Dr. D.K.Satsangi and Mrs. Poonam Satsangi. Dr. D.K.Satsangi is father of deceased who, it is alleged, died due to medical negligence of Dr. Anupam working with petitioner no. 1.2. A complaint was filed before the learned MM under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and after taking cognizance learned MM directed Director of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar to constitute a medical board comprising of doctors specialized in the field for examining the matter and giving their opinion if there was a medical negligence on the part of the accused persons in treating Rahul Satsangi or not. This Board was constitu...
Shabana Vs. Mohd. Irfan and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
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? ORDER1. This application under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner/complainant who is wife of the respondent no.1 for cancellation of bail granted by this Court vide order dated 6th September 2007. The husband/ respondent no.1 herein is involved in a case under Section 498A/406/34 IPC and he was granted anticipatory bail by this Court. The bail order shows that the parties had three children and out of three children, two children were with the husband, one of them was a handicapped child, while one child was with the wife/ complainant/ petitioner. It was also noted by this Court that all the dowry articles had been received by the complainant and she had executed an affidavit to that effect. This Court also directed that the husband who was working as an Assistant to a Homeopathic...
Raj Kumar Vs. State (Gnct) of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
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 criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C read with Section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner against an order passed by learned ASJ who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against his conviction under Sections 279/304A IPC and upheld the judgment passed by learned MM.2. The petitioner on the fateful day was driving the truck on the wrong side of the road in a rash and negligent manner and caused death of a scooterist. The petitioner was apprehended on the spot by an eye witness and handed over to the police. He was tried for offences under Section 279/304A IPC. The eye witness who had apprehended the petitioner, appeared in the court and deposed about the negligence of the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner was driving his truck on the wrong side of the road and crushed the sco...
Govind Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
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. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant Ami Lal PW-10, father of deceased Ashok Kumar was residing at house No.2132, Katra Gokul Shah, Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi. 20/30 other families were also residing in the Katra. Babu Lal PW-11 was residing in the same Katra at premises No.2137 along with his sons Kamal Singh PW-1 and Charan Singh PW-15 and another son Avtar Singh. Accused Govind Singh and his two sisters, accused Shanti and another sister Daya were residing in the same Katra at premises No.2132. Daya was blessed with a daughter Beena. Accused Jai Raj used to reside in the same Katra but had shifted. He was the brother-in-law of accused Shanti. Ashok Kumar a young man aged 23/24 years was infatuated with Beena aged 18-19 years and probably developed illicit relations with her. Whereas Govind and his s...
Shiv Gopal and anr. Vs. Shipra Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
1. Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be referred in the Digest?1. The present petition is filed under Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act against the order dated 13.7.2010 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, wherein the trial court has dismissed leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant and passed an eviction order against the petitioner herein.2. The facts necessary to be highlighted in the present petition are that the petitioner herein was served by Registered Post on 13.2.2009 and the returnable date was 16.3.2009. As per statutory provision the leave to defend application was to be filed latest by 28.2.2009 (i.e. within 15 days). According to the petitioners they have signed the application of leave to defend on 28.2.2009 and handed over such application after lunch at about 3 P.M. to the Reader of the Learned ARC, on that day it was Saturday. Next da...
Deputy Director of Income Tax Vs. Shanti Devi Progressive Education So ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2011
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 YES reported in the Digest?1. The denial of exemption to the respondent/assessee under Section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act for short) for the Assessment Year 1993-94 has given rise to the present proceedings where the order of the Assessing Authority and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) {CIT(A) for short} went against the respondent/assessee while the majority view of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT for short) members favoured the respondent/assessee. The question of law framed by this Court vide order dated 11.05.2000 is as under:"Whether the claim of the respondent for exemption under Section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was allowable?"ASSESSMENT ORDER2. It appears that when the assessment proceedings were going on in respect of the Assessment Year 1993-94, a question came to be raised in the Parlia...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »