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.
R.C. Bansal and ors. Vs. Cbi and ors.
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? (Yes) 1. These petitions arise out of the order dated 10th July, 2009 passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI), Rohini Courts, Delhi in CC No. 48/2008. Since common questions were stated to be involved in these petitions the same were heard together and are now being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioners R.C. Bansal and Ms. Sujata Chauhan were cited as prosecution witnesses by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI in short) in its charge-sheet filed in the Court of Special Judge appointed under the Prevention of Corruption Act against some public servants and some private persons for their having committed the offence of cheating and forgery of documents in conspiracy with each other and Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was also invoked. This case came to be registe...
Sri Krishan 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. The factual background of the claims in the 2 writ petitions is the same.2. A Government of India circular dated 27.12.1995 was read, in fact misread, as if irrespective of having rendered 20 years service, upon rendering 10 years' service members of para-military forces were eligible for pension upon voluntarily retiring or resigning.3. The mistake was detected on 15.1.1998 when a circular was issued that all those who had not put in 20 years' service were not eligible for pension as the same would be contrary to the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972.4. Pensions which were sanctioned and paid were not only stopped but were sought to be recovered and litigation resulted which came to be settled by the decision of the Supreme Court reported as 2001 (4) SCC 309 UOI & Ors. v. Rakesh Kumar & Ors. with the view taken that there ...
K.S.Minhas Vs. Wrestling Federation of India and anr.
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? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in Digest?1. In this case, two written statements have been filed on behalf of defendant No.1. The first is a joint written statement on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed through Shri Anupam Dhingra and Shri Rajiv Samaiyar, Advocates. The other is the written statement handed over today in the Court and filed through Shri Gurbaksh Singh, Advocate. Obviously, the Court cannot consider two separate written statements on behalf of defendant No.1. It appears that the written statement filed by Shri Gurbaksh Singh, Advocate, has been authorized by the General Secretary of defendant No.1 whereas the written statement filed through Shri Rajiv Samaiyar, Advocate, has been authorized by defendant No.2 who is its President. Primarily, it is for the Executive Council of defendant No.1 to decide who will represent it in this suit ...
Zuned Khan Vs. Amity University 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 No. in the Digest?1. The petitioner in the academic year 2010-2011 applied for and was admitted to the MBA (Gen.) programme of the respondent University. Fee of `2,23,000/- claims to have been deposited on 26 th July, 2010. The petitioner however claims that though he was given identity card and provided enrollment number but was not given the roll number for the first semester end term examination due in November-December, 2010. When the representations of the petitioner failed to meet with any success, the present petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondent University to allow the petitioner to take the examination and to continue in the second semester of the course.2. The writ petition came up before this Court first on 17 th January, 2001 when it was found that the eligibility prescribed for admission to...
Pratham Singh Rana 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. Pertaining to a complaint that at the time of enrolment as a constable with BSF the petitioner had given false information of no criminal cases pending against him, Record of Evidence was ordered on 17.6.2005 and was completed on 2.7.2005. The next stage was for the Commandant of the Unit to consider the Record of Evidence and take a decision on the further course to be adopted as per the provisions of the BSF Act 1968. Before the Commandant proceeded to consider the matter further petitioner sought for and was granted leave from 5.7.2005 till 11.7.2005 as he stated that he had to meet his father who was stated to be unwell. The petitioner did not report back for duty on 12.7.2005 and since reminder sent to join back remained unresponded a show-cause notice dated 11.9.2005 was issued to the petitioner stating therei...
Ex. Rect. Krishan Bhagwan Ex. Rect. Pooran Mal Vs. Union of India and ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2011
1. In both these cases, common questions of law and facts are involved. Therefore, they are disposed off by common order. 2. For convenient disposal of both the cases, facts given in the case titled as Ex. Rect. Krishan Bhagwan Vs. Union of India and Ors are taken into consideration. 3. In this case, the petitioner has prayed that he may be reinstated into service with all the consequential benefits, quashing the order of his discharge. 4. The petitioner was enrolled in the regular Army on 21.4.2008 after having cleared a written entrance test for the Recruits Clerk, under supervision of Zonal Recruiting Officer, Ambala. As per the Army Headquarters letter dated 17th March, 2003, a proficiency aptitude test for the Recruit Clerks is required for all newly recruits during 10th week of training. It is alleged that the incumbent had given the said test on 30.6.2008, after coming back from physical training period at 11.30 hours, he was exhausted by the heat and was asked to appear for ...
Venu Gopal Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
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 writ petition challenges the notice dated 21 st January, 2011 issued to the petitioner to vacate the room No.75 in his possession at Jubilee Hall Hostel (JHH), University of Delhi. The petition came up before this Court first on 25th January, 2011 when this Court had suggested amicable settlement. The counsel for the respondent University had taken time to obtain instructions. The petitioner was also directed to appear in person.2. The petitioner is stated to be present in the Court. However, the counsel for the respondent University states that he has instructions that owing to the past conduct of the petitioner, no amicable settlement is possible and he has instructions to oppose the petition. The respondent University is stated to have also furnished an advance copy of its counter affidavit to the co...
Vinod Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
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 revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner who has been convicted by the trial court under Section 279/304A IPC and whose appeal against conviction was dismissed by the first appellate court. At the time of admission of this revision, the counsel for the petitioner told the court that an imposter appeared as PW-12, since Ram Kumar, brother of Vinod Kumar was produced as Vinod Kumar and the real Vinod Kumar never appeared before the trial court. The accused was having a counsel namely Mr. Ombir Singh, Advocate, representing him before the trial court and said Ombir Singh colluded with Ram Kumar and Addl. Public Prosecutor (Addl. PP) and he deliberately allowed Ram Kumar to be examined as Vinod Kumar. When accused wanted to examine real Vinod Kumar as a defence witness, the defence counsel did not take inter...
Durga Ram and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
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. By present revision petition, the petitioners have assailed an order dated 8th September 2010 passed by learned District Judge-IV, New Delhi whereby the learned District Judge framed charge against the petitioners under Section 498A/304B/406 read with Section 34 IPC. Petitioner Durga Ram is the father in law of the deceased (husband's father) and petitioner no.2 Smt. Sunehra is the wife of elder brother of husband of the deceased. They were summoned on an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C during trial and charged with above offences.2. The deceased Kamlesh was married to Rajesh son of Durga Ram on 21st January 2005. She died an unnatural death on 11th March, 2005 at her matrimonial home. She was taken to hospital where she was declared brought dead. The parents of the deceased were informed that she had d...
Ajit Singh and ors. Vs. State Andanr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
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 under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing of FIR no. 127 of 2002, registered under Section 498-A/323/34 IPC, P.S. Roop Nagar, Delhi. Quashing has been sought on the ground that respondent No. 2 Pushpa Rani had entered into a compromise with the petitioners through Mediation cell on 13th March, 2008 and it was agreed in the compromise that the FIR would be got quashed. It was also agreed that the petitioner No. 1 would also withdraw his divorce case pending before the Court of ADJ. However, the petitioner No. 1 withdrew his case, the respondent No. 2 did not agree for quashing of the criminal case and therefore this petition has been filed. 2. The respondent has opposed quashing of FIR on the ground that the compromise arrived at between the parties was breached by the petitioner and in view of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »