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.
Ex Signalman Vijay Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
1. The petitioner challenged the Summary Court Martial proceedings, whereby he was found guilty of having committed the offence under Army Act Section 63 and to be dismissed, by filing W.P (C) No. 2123 of 2000 before the Delhi High Court. On formation of the Armed Forces Tribunal, the writ petition was transferred to this Bench and the same is being disposed of by this judgment treating it as an appeal under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was enrolled in the Army on 5.7.1996 in the Corps of Signals and on 6.7.1995, he was posted to 3 Field Sub Group, where he was doing the duties of Driver. During this tenure, on 1.2.1998, the appellant has supposedly committed an offence under Army Act Section 63 and consequently he was tried by a Summary Court Martial and sentenced to be dismissed. 3. The appellant is aggrieved on account of the fact that although a Court of Inquiry was ordered into this incident, AR 180 was n...
Ex Rfn Satbir Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
1. Challenge in this writ petition is directed against the court martial proceedings, whereby he was found guilty of the offences under Army Act Sections 48 and 63 and sentenced to be dismissed from service. On formation of this Tribunal, the writ petition was transferred to this Bench and is being disposed of by this judgment, treating it as an appeal. 2. The appellant was enrolled as a Sepoy in 1985 and on completion of his training; was posted to 3rd Battallion, Rajputana Rifles. Till his dismissal from service on 28.1.1995, he has been serving with utmost dedication and sincerity and for no rhyme or reason he had been dismissed from service for some offences which he did not commit. A brief background to the case is that 27.3.1994 was a holiday on account of Holi festival. Therefore, it is an admitted position that liquor was issued to jawans to celebrate the festival and also that the appellant was not on duty at the time when he was supposed to have committed such offences. In t...
NazruddIn and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
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 impugned judgment and order dated 07.04.1997, appellants Nazruddin and Chandan have been convicted for the offence of having murdered Mohd.Saed-ul-Haq (herein after referred to as the 'Deceased;), for which offence they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine in sum of `500/- each; in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. Criminal law was set into motion at around 09.30 A.M. on 02.02.1994 when DD entry No.14B, Ex.PW-17/A, was recorded by ASI Ram Murty to the effect that an unknown person has informed over telephone that a destitute person is lying dead in a drain near PAC camp.3. On receiving a copy of the afore-noted DD entry, Inspector Mahipal Singh PW-23, accompanied by Const.Mukesh Kumar PW-22, proceeded to the drain in question where they saw that the decea...
Wool Worth (India) Ltd. and anr Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
1. Whether reporters of the local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No 1. The subject matter of the present writ petition is a Notification dated 1 st July 1997 issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MPNG), Government of India stating that supply of furnace oil for captive use of 100% export oriented undertakings (EOUs) would be made at international rates. The grievance of the Petitioner, which is an EOU, is that despite the above Notification, furnace oil was supplied at international rates only for the period between 7th October 1997 and 31st March 1998. The further grievance is that after 1st April 1998, the price for supply of furnace oil by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL), Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively, was nearly doubled the previous price although there was no such increase in the international m...
Surender @ Babli Vs. State Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
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 Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for grant of parole for a period of two months to enable him to attend the ceremonies of marriage of his niece (Ms.Rakhi, daughter of Sh.Ratan Lal) on 25th February, 2011. Parole has also been sought by the petitioner to enable him to preserve his ties with society and to meet his family members.2. Counsel for the petitioner states that vide impugned order dated 16 th December, 2010 the aforesaid application of the petitioner was rejected by the Government of NCT of Delhi on the ground that an adverse police report had been given stating that he may jump the parole. 3. Status report was called from the respondents. As per the status report, the petitioner was charge...
Ramesh L. Aneja @ R.L. Aneja Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
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 under Sections 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner for setting aside an order dated 4th February 2010 passed by learned MM summoning the accused/ petitioner under Section 3 (10) of Prevention of Atrocities against Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that an FIR bearing number 98 of 2005 was registered against the petitioner on the basis of a complaint made by respondent/ complainant dated 3rd April, 2005 to SHO police station Chanakya Puri wherein he had alleged that the petitioner had called him names by caste and abused him.3. The complainant was employed with HPCL as a station operator. His job was to operate the petrol pump. The petitioner was station manager with a duty to supervise the work at the petrol pump. This...
M/S. S.N.Nandy and Co. Vs. M/S. Nicco Corporation Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may Yes be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in Digest?1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.92,20,562/-. The defendant-company, which was awarded the work for Biological Oxidation Plant for Coal Chemical Effluents at Rourkela Steel Plant (hereinafter referred to as "RSP), assigned the civil work for the aforesaid plant to the plaintiff for a lump sum amount of Rs.2,87,30,000/- vide Letter of Intent (hereinafter referred to as LOI) dated 15th October, 1992. The scope of work as also the commercial terms for its execution were annexed to the LOI. It is alleged that in a meeting held in the last week of February, 1993, among the plaintiff, defendant and the officials of RSP, some major changes were made in the nature of civil work which was assigned to the plaintiff and those changes involved extra work and extra price implications. Some other extra works were later e...
Asha Sehgal and ors Vs. Rajinder Kumar Sehgal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be Yes allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Yes the Digest?1. The appellant is aggrieved of the order passed by the Additional District Judge dated 2.5.2009, whereby the ld.Judge has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent against the order passed by the ld.Civil Judge, Delhi dated13.04.2007 in Suit No. 13/06/03, whereby the application filed by the respondent under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 22 Rule 3 CPC was dismissed and it was further ordered that in the absence of any legal heir of the deceased Smt.Agyawati Sehgal, who is the plaintiff in the suit, the suit also stands abated.2. Briefly stating, the facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that Smt.Agyawati Sehgal had filed a suit for possession and damages for use and occupation being mesne profits and for permanent injunction against the appellant claiming to be the absolute owner in possession of th...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Goyal M.G. Gases Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be No 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. Before coming to the nature of the impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), it would be apposite to take note of the backdrop facts for the reason that the impugned order passed is in the second round of litigation and the orders which were passed in the first round of litigation have direct bearing on the issue. 2. The respondent had filed the income tax return for the assessment year 1999-2000 declaring income of Rs.2.31 crores. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") at an income of R.3.56 crores. Since additions were made by the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order that order was challenged by the assessee in appeal which was deiced by CIT(Appeals) on 19.0...
Union of India Vs. Mr.D.R.Dhingra and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may YES be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? YES3. Whether the judgment should be YES reported in the Digest?1. These writ petitions are against the orders dated 4th August, 2009 passed by the Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A No.1267/2008 titled D.R. Dhingra v. Union of India and Anr holding that the date of birth of Sh.D.R.Dhingra (hereinafter referred to as applicant) is 6th May, 1952 and not 6th May, 1948. The Tribunal has held that though there is no bonafide clerical mistake as contemplated under Rule 16A of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, however, the tribunal deemed the case of the applicant as a rarest of rare case, and thus directed the Central Government to consider the applicability of Rule 3 of the All India Services (Conditions of Service-Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960 and to take a decision whether or not, the applicant is entitled for dispen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »