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.
B.K. Institute of Education and Technology and anr. Vs. Ggsip Universi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
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 petitioners impugn the refusal by the respondent University to grant affiliation to the petitioner no.1 Institute for imparting education in Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA) (General) and BBA (Banking & Insurance) Courses for the academic year 2010-2011 and also seek mandamus directing the respondent University to grant such affiliation to the petitioner no.1 Institute. The petitioner no.1 Institute is a self financing private Institute imparting higher education, managed and controlled by the petitioner no.2 Society. The petitioner no.1 Institute on 19 th April, 2010 applied to the respondent University for affiliation for two courses aforesaid; a joint inspection of the petitioner no.1 Institute was carried out on 18th June, 2010 and an inspection report dated 7 th July, 2010 submitted. Accor...
Shri Ankit Singh Dabas and anr. Vs. Shri Kuldeep Singh and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
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 Digest?1. This is a suit filed under Order 37 of CPC. A perusal of the order of this Court dated 8th April 2009 shows that in response to summons for judgment served on defendant No.1, he filed his application seeking leave to contest the suit. However, nobody appeared for defendant No.1 on 10th February 2009, 23rd March 2009 and 8th April 2009. The application, therefore, was dismissed for non-prosecution and consequently a decree for recovery of Rs.14 Lacs with costs and interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. 1st August 2003 was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant No.1.2. The case of the applicant/defendant No.1 is that late Sh. Pramod Kumar Sharma, Advocate whom he had engaged for the purpose of this suit, unfortunately expired on 16th October 2008 and, therefore, could not appear when the ma...
Gurnam Singh Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
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 petitioner, Gurnam Singh was a Constable with Border Security Force. He was attached to the 105th Bn. which was detailed for duties at Murshidabad in the State of West Bengal.2. On 12.1.2009 a civilian named Kartik Mondal, lodged a complaint with the Commandant of the Battalion against the petitioner alleging that on 5th January 2009, the petitioner approached him at his shop and abused and threatened to kill him and his son if he failed to give `35,000/- to the petitioner. The complaint reads as under:-Complainant : Kartik Mondal S/o Late Monohar Mondal of Vill. Biswanathpur, P.O. K.D.Para, P.S. Lalgola, Dist. Murshidabad, West Bengal.Respected Sir,With due respect I beg to state that I am a poor Footpath Businessman. I live with this business. But on 05.01.2009 a BSF Constable suddenly attacked on me and use ...
Ramjatan Paswan and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
ORDER1. The petitioners 46 in number have challenged orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 30th July, 2010 and 18th October, 2010 dismissing their original petition and the review application. The contention of the petitioners before the Tribunal and before us is that they should be regularized and appointed as regular Nursing Attendants in the Safdarjung Hospital. The petitioners' services were dispensed with vide order dated 8.3.2010, hence they have claimed reinstatement.2. It is urged before us that the petitioners were selected after regular selection process and, therefore, decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 19, is not applicable, rather supports them as their initial appointment was not illegal. It is further submitted that the respondents have issued tender notice inviting technical and financial bids from reputed firms for outsourcing the work which was being performed by the petitioners.3. The respondents h...
Vijay Kumar Yadav Vs. State Govt of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
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. Crl. M.A. 18803/2010 is an application filed by the appellant claiming that he was a juvenile on the date of the incident, i.e., on 03.10.2006. Along with the application, the appellant has annexed a school leaving certificate which shows his date of birth to be 02.01.1989. On a previous date, we had directed the learned counsel for the State to have the said school certificate verified as also the date of the birth of the appellant as appearing in the record of the said school. A status report dated 27.01.2011 furnished by the Station House Officer of Police Station Civil Lines, Delhi-110 054, has been filed on behalf of the respondent/State. As per the said status report, the school transfer certificate of the appellant Vijay Kumar Yadav, son of Sh. Santosh Kumar Yadav, resident of Village Kasba Tali Ko Purva, Pos...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jagni Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
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? J U D G M E N T 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant Insurance Company seeks to impugn the award dated 28th April, 2009. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.3. Although a number of grounds were raised by the appellant at the time of the institution of the appeal, at the time of hearing Mr. A.K. Soni, the learned counsel for the appellant confines his submissions to two grounds. The first ground urged by Mr. Soni is that though the Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, it failed to follow the ratio of the said judgment, which clearly lays down that the suitable multiplier to be adopted in a case where the deceased is a bachelor and the claim...
M/S. Savikar Plyboards Limited Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Limited
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President 1. The facts of the case are that on 20.2.2011, the complainant dispatched a consignment of three packages, each containing a hand crafted statue of Lord Krishna with Cow Gold, Silver and Copper finish, amounting to Rs.6,60,000/- to consignee Lee Kim International, 10, Ansol Road, 29-02 , International Plaza, Singapore by Singapore Airlines, vide invoice No.0040 dated 16th Feb., 2001, packing list dated 16th Feb. 2001, booking receipt No.618-23300071 dated 20.2.2001. To cover all the risks from New Delhi to Singapore, the complainant obtained from OP Insurance Co. a Marine Policy on 16.2.2001 for an amount US doller 12,750 equivalent to Rs.6,60,000/-. Copy of the insurance policy exhibit CW 1/4 is available on record. When the consignment reached Singapore, the consignee noted that there were wholes and packages were in a torn condition. He therefore intimated the agent M/s India International Pte Limited of the OP Insurance Co. at Singapore about it, and th...
Swaran Singh Vs. Surinder Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2011
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 the Digest? Yes 1. This Appeal lays siege to the Order dated 22.12.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Appellants Suit pursuant to an application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC for short). We have summoned the Trial Court records and have heard the matter in complete detail.2. The Plaintiff has already filed two applications seeking amendment to the Plaint which were rejected by the High Court and against which he has approached the Honble Supreme Court without success. It is not in dispute that the third application for amending the Plaint was pending but remained unadjudicated at the time when the Suit was dismissed. We desist from giving a detailed account of the litigation as it will make this Judgment needlessly prolix. However, it is germane to mention that the le...
Sgt.Gedela Yugandhar and ors. Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2011
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. Experience shows to this Court that a fertile area of litigation is generated when policies change and the executive does not take care that the baton is passed on smoothly. He who has witnessed a relay race would strikingly notice the runners passing on the baton very smoothly, neither pushing the next runner nor tripping the other runners and after the baton is handed over, remove themselves from the track. They do so for the reason they know that if they trip any other runner, the team as a whole would be disqualified and if while passing on the baton, the runner who has to run the next leg is pushed too hard or the baton drops, the race would be lost.2. We wish that the executive learned a lesson to run a relay and when a policy is replaced, care be taken of the distance to be run by two runners on the same tra...
Ajay Kumar JaIn Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2011
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) The petitioner was booked for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal code vide FIR No. 121/2002 registered at Mukherjee Nagar Police Station on 14th March, 2002 at the instance of respondent no. 2-complainant M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Limited. The petitioner was booked in four other cases also of similar nature vide different FIRs registered at Mukherjee Nagar Police Station. The petitioner had got financed motor vehicles from the said complainant. The complainant Company filed criminal complaints in the Court of the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate which directed the police to register FIRs against the petitioner-accused herein. In compliance of that direction different FIRs included the FIR of the present case came to be registered by the police. During t...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »