Delhi Court February 2011 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2011 Page 2 of about 226 results (0.010 seconds)Sh. Suraj Prakash Singh Vs. Smt. Kamlesh Prakash and ors.
Court: Delhi
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 Digest?1. The learned counsel for the plaintiff gives up defendants No.5 and 6, who are stated to be tenants in one of the property, subject matter of the suit. Their names are deleted from the array of parties. Amended memo of parties be filed.IA No. 5340/20102. This is an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The admitted position is that late Sh. Manmohan Prakash was the sole owner of properties No.D-2/2586, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and C-13, Green Park Extension, New Delhi. Sh. Manmohan Prakash died on 5th January 2006, leaving the plaintiff, who is his son, defendant No.1, who is his widow, defendant No.2, who is his other son and defendant No.3, who is his daughter, as his Class 1 legal heirs. The case of the plaintiff is that late Sh. Manmohan Prakash died intestate. A probate petition b...
Tag this Judgment!Kavita Singh Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi
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 judgment should be reported in Digest? 1. This petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of summoning order dated 8th January 2010 in FIR No.240 of 2007 under Section 336 of IPC pending trial in the court of learned MM, Delhi and summoning order dated 8th January, 2010 passed by learned MM.2. The contention of the petitioner is that she being the owner of the flat No.C-12-S, Vijata Vihar, Rohini (Sector-13), Delhi had undertaken repairs/ renovation work of her flat. The repair and renovation work was being done as per law without causing any harm to the respondent/ complainant. However, the complainant was not letting the petitioner to do the repair work despite petitioner taking permission from the president of the society and despite municipal byelaws permitting such repair work. It is alleged that since the complaina...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Kumar Rai 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. On 04.11.2007, a sting operation was televised on the news channel India TV, wherein a jawan in uniform was shown receiving bribe. It was alleged that the jawan was a member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and that he was taking bribe from a civilian to permit entry into the precincts of the Indian Oil Corporation Refinery at Panipat. 2. It was highlighted in the Sting Operation that the Government of India spends crores of rupees of tax-payers money to raise a Force charged with the duty to protect important and vital installations belonging to the Government and Public Sector Undertakings and that rather than protect these installations, members of the force were making illegal gains by permitting all and sundry to freely enter the Public Sector Undertakings. It was sought to be highlighted that se...
Tag this Judgment!Dhan Bahadur @ Raju Vs. State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
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. By the judgment dated 29th August, 2009, appellants have been convicted under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the Trial Court. They have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of `50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. It has been ordered that fine amount, if realized, be paid to the parents of the girl for her rehabilitation. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. has also been given to the appellant.2. It is this judgment which is under challenge in these appeals. Both the appeals are being disposed of together as the same arise out of the same incident and FIR.3. FIR in this case was registered on the statement of mother of the prosecutrix (hereinafter referred to as "complainant"). In the FIR, complainant stat...
Tag this Judgment!Hira Singh Rawat Vs. State of Nct of Delhi
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 judgment should be reported in Digest? 1. This application for anticipatory bail has been made by the applicant who is involved in a case under Section 420/380/34 IPC. Complainant in this case is Poonam Sodi W/o Shri Pyare Lal. She was a young uneducated woman. She married an old person, who was more than 60 years older to her, in order to look after him and his children. She alleged that accused exploited this situation and started coming to her house and developed physical relations with her. He continued exploiting her sexually and also extracted money from her. He took away ATM card of her husband and withdrew money and thereafter he got her husband's property transferred in her name under pressure and then got her husband's property transferred in his own name. No consideration was paid to her for the transfer. She realized this when accused asked her to vaca...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. ShamsuddIn Vs. the State and ors. (Nct of Delhi)
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 judgment should be reported in Digest?1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer that the Court should issue a mandamus directing that the possession of property bearing number 27, Second Floor, Sewa Nagar Market, New Delhi be handed over to the petitioner in view of the order dated 4th April, 1997 passed by learned ASJ.2. The petitioner was the tenant in the property in question sometime in 1994. The owner of the property was one Mr. Narender Kumar living abroad and Mr. Atam Prakash,a relation of Mr. Narender Kumar was the landlord of the premises. Atam Prakash was living on the ground floor and the petitioner was living on the first floor as tenant. In 1994, the petitioner left the premises and went to Kerala. Atam Prakash claimed that the petitioner while going to Kerala handed over the keys of the premises in question to him. One Govindan Som...
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Rai Vs. State
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 judgment should be reported in Digest?ORDER1. By this common order, I shall dispose of the applications for suspension of sentence preferred by the petitioners during pendency of revision petitions against conviction of Mr. Pradeep Kumar Aggawal under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC and petitioner Rakesh Rai under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC and under Section 420 and 468 IPC upheld in appeal.2. Four persons namely Javed Waqar Merchant @ Mohd. Waqar, Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal, Rakesh Rai and Smt. Sayesta Bano wife of Javed Waqar were put on trial in this criminal case before leaned ACMM, Delhi for playing fraud upon the State by cheating the exchequer on the basis of forged documents, of duty drawback to the tune of Rs.56,15,480/-. It was alleged that this conspiracy to cheat was hatched up by all the four accused persons. The main accused was Javed ...
Tag this Judgment!Ex Maj Ys Nagar Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Ex. Maj. Y.S Nagar approached the Delhi High Court for quashing the findings and sentence arrived at by the Summary General Court Martial (SGCM) on 8.10.1999, whereby he was held guilty of the offence under Army Act Section 69 and sentenced to (i) be cashiered; and (ii) suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. On formation of this Tribunal, the case was transferred for disposal and is being treated it as an appeal under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are: The appellant, on being commissioned in the Army on 19.12.1981, was chosen to carry out the intelligence duties in the troubled and terrorists infested valley of Srinagar in Jammu and Kashmir. During his service in Jammu and Kashmir, the appellant had tumbled upon a case relating to theft of large quantity of carpets from a factory in Srinagar, wherein the needle of suspicion pointed to certain Army officials also, which caused the fabrication of this case against him...
Tag this Judgment!Ex Sep/Dvr Rakesh Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The challenge in this appeal under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 is against the Summary General Court Martial (SGCM) proceedings holding the appellant guilty of having committed the offence under Army Act Section 69 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to be dismissed from service. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in a nutshell, are: The appellant, while attached on temporary duty to 8 Sikh Regiment located at Nagaland, was charge sheeted for having committed the offence under Section 376 read with Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. He was put to trial by the court martial on 28.7.2008. Having found him guilty, he was sentenced by the SGCM. His pre and post confirmation petitions resulted in rejection. Hence the present appeal. 3. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the trial by the SGCM is against the statutory provisions of law as it did not comply with Army Rule 180 by not giving him the opportunity to cro...
Tag this Judgment!Manjeet Singh Vs. State
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 judgment should be reported in Digest? 1. This revision has been preferred by the petitioner against a judgment dated 6th August, 2010 of the Appellate Court whereby the appeal of the petitioner against his conviction under Section 419/420/467/468/471 IPC was upheld.2. Complainant Sant Singh's son lived in Germany while his son-in-law Manmohan Singh lived in village Tanda, Hoshiyar Pur. Complainant's son Gurmeet Singh sent a bank draft of ` 2,00,000/- through registered post to the complainant at the address of his son-in-law. When this bank draft was not received, complainant told his son about the non receipt of the bank draft. His son gave him details of the bank draft. On verification, complainant came to know that bank draft of ` 2.00 lakh payable in his name had already been got encashed by opening a saving bank account No. 23994 in Central Bank of India, Ti...
Tag this Judgment!