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.
Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi Vs. NavIn Talwar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes ORDER1. The Petitioner Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Delhi is aggrieved by orders dated 23rd November 2010 and 23rd December 2010 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) in the complaints of Mr. Navin Talwar [the Respondent in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 747 of 2011) and Mr. Sushil Kohli [the Respondent in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 751 of 2011), respectively.2. The issue involved in both these petitions is more or less similar. Mr. Navin Talwar sat for the Joint Entrance Examination 2010 (JEE 2010). Mr. Sushil Kohlis daughter, Ms. Sakshi Kohli, sat for the Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering 2010 (GATE 2010). The scheme of the examination is that the candidates are given two question papers, containing multiple choices for the correct answers, the correct answers are to be darkened by a penci...
Jaswant Singh Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
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. Vide order dated 22.12.2000 petitioner has been visited with the penalty of dismissal from service on the ground that w.e.f. 4.1.2000 he has absented from duty without reasonable cause.2. Relevant facts are that petitioner's request for being voluntarily retired submitted on 2.2.1999 was accepted by the competent authority on 17.2.1999 intimating petitioner that the acceptance would be effective from 30.4.1999 and that petitioner's name would be struck off the strength of the Unit w.e.f. 30.4.1999 (AN). It was directed that the petitioner would be entitled to admissible pensionary benefits and for which it was directed that he should complete the codal formalities; one of which was to furnish 4 copies of a joint passport size photograph with his wife.3. The petitioner informed that he could not furnish a joint phot...
Manpreet Singh Vs. National Panasonic India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
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. These appeals have been filed against the judgment and decree dated 9th march 2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in suit no. 482/01 filed by the appellant in RFA No. 309/2006 (hereinafter referred as the plaintiff) for decrees of declaration ,mandatory injunction, rendition of accounts and recovery of Rs. 2,20,000/- against the appellant in RFA No. 14/2005 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as the defendant). The learned trial Court had decided the suit partly in favour of the plaintiff and partly in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff filed his appeal against the trial Courts judgment challenging the rejection of all his claims except one while the defendant filed its separate appeal against the grant of some relief to the plaintiff. Both the appeals were, however, heard analo...
Sanjeev Khanna Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
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 present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has assailed an order passed in revision by the learned Sessions Judge. The petitioner was booked under Section 420/468/471 IPC vide FIR No. 524 of 2003 registered at Police Station Kotla Mubark Pur. The learned MM, before whom charge-sheet was filed, after considering the arguments of the prosecution and the petitioner observed that no charge was made out against the accused under Section 468/471 IPC. However, a charge under Section 420 of IPC was made out. Against this order, the petitioner preferred a revision before learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge vide a detailed order dismissed the revision petition discussing provisions of law as well as precedents on the issue. This petition has been filed assailing the order of learned Sessions Judge.2....
Bani Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
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. In the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.03.1993 dismissing the petitioner from service and the order dated 16.06.1993 of the appellate authority dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner.2. The petitioner was employed as a Head Constable (Driver) in the CISF and was attached in the unit at Rihand Nagar, Uttar Pradesh in the year 1980. On 13.08.1992 the 1 ton vehicle driven by the petitioner in which jawans of CISF were being transported met with an accident resulting in the death of one HC G.D.Singh, a passenger in the vehicle and injuries to other unit personnel.3. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on 01.10.1992, wherein the following charges were levied against him:-"Charge-INo.801340220 P.R./Driver Bani Singh is charged for total negligence. ...
Sanjeev Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
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. Believing that Deepak PW-13 was an eye-witness to the incident and accepting his testimony as creditworthy; further finding strong incriminating circumstantial evidence through the percipient testimonial evidence of HC Ram Charan PW-10 and Ct.Jaipal PW-15, vide impugned judgment and order dated 5.9.1998, the appellant has been convicted for the offence of having murdered Brij Mohan @Bobby on 14.9.1995 at around 1:30/1:45 PM.2. Let us note the facts leading to the registration of FIR Ex.PW-12/A (we find that on the FIR exhibit mark written is Ex.PW/A). Vide DD No.21 dated 14.9.1995, Ex.PW-8/A, duly proved at the trial through the testimony of its scribe Ct.Raj Kumar PW-8, at the police picket Trilokpuri it was recorded in the Daily Diary that pursuant to information flashed by the Police Control Room through Lady Co...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes. 1. The petitioner by this petition has assailed order dated 13 th April, 2010 whereby the learned ACMM exercised power under Section 67 of IPC and sentenced the Commissioner of Customs to imprisonment for a period of six months for non-payment of cost of Rs. 23,307/-.2. Section 67 of IPC reads as under:"Section 67. Imprisonment for non-payment of fine when offence punishable with fine only -If 1 the offence be punishable with fine only, [the imprisonment which the Court imposes in default of payment of the fine shall be simple, and] the term for which the Court directs the offender to be imprisoned, in default of payment of fine, shall not exceed the following scale, that is to say, for any terms not exceeding two months when the amount of the fine shall not exceed fifty rupees, and for any terms not exceeding ...
Ankur Chadha Vs. Ritu Chadha
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
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 petitioner has assailed order dated 6th October, 2010 passed by the revision court dismissing the revision of the petitioner.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that petitioner moved an application under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. for registration of an FIR u/s 420, 425, 465, 468, 469, 471 and 120-B IPC read with Section 191, 193, 195, 196, 199 and 200 of IPC against the respondent. The occasion for making this complaint was that the respondent filed a maintenance application against the petitioner and along with the maintenance application, she filed a letter of the company of the petitioner showing that the salary of the petitioner was more than Rs. 5.00 lakh per annum. The petitioner contended that the letter filed by respondent was a forged letter and the original...
Joint Director of Civil Aviation and ors. Vs. Sh.iqbal Singh Vedi and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
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 petitioners, Joint Director of Civil Aviation & Ors., have challenged the order dated 19th May, 2010 passed in CP No.236 of 2007 in OA No.1640 of 2006 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in the matter, titled Iqbal Singh Vedi & Ors. v. Sh. A.K.Chopra, Joint Director of Civil Aviation & Ors. where the Tribunal heard revived contempt petition and directed the petitioners to pay to the respondents simple interest @ 9% per annum on arrears of revision of IDA pay scale from December, 1990 till December, 1995 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.2. The Tribunal had held that it had directed by an order dated 4th June, 2007 in OA No.1640 of 2006 to grant interest at 9% per annum on the arrears payable to the respondents from the date it b...
Parwana Co-oprative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. the Registrar of Co ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
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 No reported in the Digest?1. The present dispute is an unfortunate one which is hanging fire for 19 years on a limited scope i.e. whether the impugned orders passed by the Joint Registrar referring the claims of R-4 to R-6 to arbitration can be sustained.2. The factual matrix required for determining the controversy is limited. One Mr.S.S.Harit was appointed as an Administrator who had enrolled R-4 to R-6 and other persons as members of the Society in the year 1988. Subsequently, elections were held and the Society pleaded a case that the enrolment of such persons was wrongful and thus sought to terminate their membership and refund the amount deposited as initial share money. It is an undisputed fact that before such action, no show cause notice was issued.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is so as, there were ce...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »