Delhi Court March 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.
Mahipal Singh Raghav Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-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. The petitioner Mahipal Singh Raghav was enrolled as a Constable with BSF in the year 1988. In the year 2002 he was attached with the 67th Bn.BSF which was deployed at BOP Natwartola at Indo-Bangladesh border. While on duty with Late Ct.L.Balakrishnan, the petitioner admittedly shot Late Ct.Balakrishnan who died.2. The matter needed an investigation. Complying with the provisions of the BSF Act 1968, Commandant Ajaib Singh ordered Record of Evidence to be prepared on 4.5.2002. He further ordered an Additional Record of Evidence to be prepared 14.06.2002. On the scrutiny of the Record of Evidence and Additional Record of Evidence he framed a charge under Section 46 of the BSF Act against the petitioner as under:-"BSF ACT SEC-46 COMMITING A CIVIL OFFENCE THAT IS TO SAY CAUSING DEATH BY A RASH OR NEGLIGENT ACT NOT AMOUN...
Jai Prakash Dhaka Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2011
1. Notwithstanding all and sundry pleading in the writ petition and reliefs prayed for, learned counsel for the petitioner restricted submissions to the issue of petitioner being discharged from service on account of physical infirmity and petitioner's entitlement to disability pension.2. Employed as a driver with C.I.S.F., on 02.12.1995 petitioner was driving a vehicle along with an escort party bringing cash from Okha to Doyang in Nagaland. At 13:50 hrs. militants attacked the party. Encounter ensued for 15-20 minutes. Heavy exchange of fire took place. Petitioner received grievous injuries. A bullet hit his lower jaw. A portion of mandible as also three teeth were lost. Left shoulder got bullet damaged, which required skin grafting. Medial aspect of left arm was rendered virtually immobile. Splinter pieces were embedded all over the body. By 19.05.1996, it was apparent that the petitioner would not show much recovery and would be permanently physically handicapped for the rest of hi...
Mrs. Anjana Vij Vs. Mr. Krishan Dev and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in Digest?1. This is a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 20th April, 2006 and for grant of injunction. The case of the plaintiff is that vide an agreement to sell dated 20 th April, 2006, defendant No.1 agreed to sell plot No.50 measuring 100 sq. meters at Rangapuri, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi to her for a consideration of Rs.3 lakhs and received a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- from him leaving a very small amount of Rs.10,000/- as the balance sale consideration. It is also alleged that the plot, subject matter of the agreement was initially allotted by the DDA to the father of defendant No.1, who died on 18th March, 2006 and defendant No.1, claiming to be the sole successor of his father, entered into the abovementioned agreement with the plaintiff. Since defendant No.1 failed to execute the sale document ...
Sunil Kumar Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-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. Assigned the roster to hear writ petitions pertaining to Para Military Forces, we are constrained to note that every 4th case dealt with by us pertains to a Constable or a Head Constable of a Para Military Force overstaying leave or leaving the unit in a state of distress and claiming that he told the Company Havaldar Major of the reason why he was going to his village and needless to state the Company Havaldar Major not being the competent authority to sanction leave, disciplinary action being taken against these Constables and Head Constables for the misdemeanour of unauthorized absence. Invariably, penalty imposed is of removal or dismissal from service or one of compulsory retirement.2. These cases have a cry for justice on the part of the petitioners who render a tale of woes with reference to the social condi...
Shri Torhi Singh Vs. Delhi Electric Supply Committee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-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. The petitioner was employed with the erstwhile Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU) as an Inspector during the relevant period. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 23rd September, 1998 on the allegation that he had energised a commercial light connection sanctioned against K.No. 614-121778 in favour of one Shri Girbar Singh at premises of one Mr. Rakesh Kumar on the main road of Babarpur and not at premises no. 20-A-3/17, Vishwakarma Road, Babarpur, Shahdara where it was actually to be energised. The charge-sheet had been issued pursuant to a complaint made against the petitioner by one Nepal Singh resident of Village Babarpur who had alleged that the petitioner had energised the commercial light connection at the wrong premises intentionally after charging illegal gratification from Rakesh. ...
Sunil Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-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. The appellant has been convicted for the offence of having kidnapped and murdered Mukesh, aged 6 years, as per the impugned judgment and order dated 26.10.1998. Vide order on sentence dated 27.10.1999, for the offence of murder, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and for the offence of kidnapping has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years.2. The learned trial judge has sustained the conviction on the findings returned that 2 incriminating circumstances have been proved by the prosecution and that the two are sufficient wherefrom the guilt of the appellant can be inferred. The first circumstance held established is that the deceased and the appellant were last seen together in the company of each other at 10 PM on 12.10.1997, a fact proved through the testimony of Bal Kisha...
Ram Kanwar Vs. Uoi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-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. Petitioner prays that the order dated 15.12.2005, based on the opinion of a Medical Board be declared null and void. Directions are sought by the petitioner to be reinstated in service. Further direction sought by the petitioner is that the respondents should be directed to ensure that petitioner serves in soft areas only.2. A perusal of the pleadings in the writ petition would make it abundantly clear that the petitioner received a serious injury in his left knee while playing kabaddi on 27.3.1995 at Matli, Uttarkashi. He was given treatment, but unfortunately the injury resulted in a permanent disablement of the left knee as also caused lumber spondylitis.3. The petitioner was accommodated as far as possible due to being placed in lower medical category. Except for unavoidable purpose when on account of non-avail...
Kala Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
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. This appeal arises out of an order dated 06.03.2009 passed by the Railways Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim of the appellant filed under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act for payment of compensation on account of death of Sh.Jagdish, who was admittedly a bona fide passenger.2. According to the appellant, the deceased was a daily passenger and was holder of MST bearing No. 002270 from Khekra to Vivek Vihar. On the day of the incident i.e. 24.07.2007 at about 5.30 p.m. the deceased commuting on the abovementioned route came to Shahdara Railway station from Vivek Vihar but due to the heavy rush he could only hold on to the gate and after the train started, due to heavy rush, jerk, push and ...
Hindustan Vidyut Products Ltd Vs. Delhi Power Company Ltd.and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the Judgment should be reported Yes in the Digest?1. These Appeals assail the Judgment of the learned Single Judge passed on July 25, 2007 by which OMP No.114/2006 and OMP No. 115/2006 came to be decided. Petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 had been filed by the Delhi Power Company Ltd. challenging the validity of the Award dated 22nd December, 2005. A perusal of the records discloses that Arbitration Application No.97/2002 had earlier been filed keeping in view the failure of the DVB (Delhi Vidyut Board) to appoint an Arbitrator. Justice D.K.Jain, as His Lordship then was, had noted that the appointment of an Arbitrator had not been made within thirty days and hence Justice R.P.Gupta, (Rtd.) was appointed as the Arbitrator. The parties before the Arbitrator were arrayed as follows:-"Hindustan Vidyut Products Ltd.-vs-1.De...
Hardeep Singh Nagra Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
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. Vide these applications, the applicant is seeking recall of the order dated 21st January, 2010 whereby the criminal complaints filed by it, to the extent they pertained to the petitioner Hardeep Singh Nagra, were dismissed. Criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were filed by the applicant/complainant M/s Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. against Routes Car Rental Pvt. Ltd. and 3 others, including the petitioner Hardeep Singh Nagra, who was impleaded as Accused No.4 in the complaint. It was alleged in para 3 of the complaint that Accused Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. Sukhdev Dhillon and Syed Akthar Arshad were the directors of Accused No.1 company and were officers engaged in day to day affairs of the company. As regards, the petitioner/accused No.4 Hardeep Singh Nagra, it was alleged in para 4 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »