Delhi Court March 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Mohd. Sualeheen Vs. M.C.D. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-2011
ORDERCM No. 6374/11For reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned.LPA No. 297/20111. The prayers made in the present Letters Patent Appeal are in the nature of prayers which are normally made before the first court. During the course of arguments, it is contended that the appellant has challenged the order dated 24th December, 2010, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition but granting time to the appellant to deposit the balance sale consideration @ Rs.7000/- per sq. mtr. along with interest @ 10% per annum. It is submitted that the subsequent order dated 25th January, 2011 is also challenged.2. The contention of the appellant is that he has made payment of Rs.9,60,000/- for allotment of plots in Ghogha Dairy colony @ Rs.2,500/- per sq. mtr. Ultimately, 2 plots have been allotted in terms of the policy but the respondent Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) has raised the price of each plot to Rs.7000/- per sq. mtr. It is su...
Harvinder Kaur and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-2011
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?1. This is an appeal arising out of an order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 15.04.2010 in O.A. No.97/2009 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim application filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act by the dependants of the deceased only on the ground that the deceased fell down when he tried to get down from a moving train. The findings returned by the Tribunal have been assailed by the appellants. According to the appellant, liability of the Railways when an accident occurs and leads to infliction of injury or causing of death is absolute, the reasons given by the Tribunal in having dismissed the claim petition are not sustainable. The appellants have denied that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.2. The Tribun...
Kesoram Industries Limited and ors Vs. Allahabad Bank and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-2011
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 in the Digest? No1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 12 th January, 2009 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi dismissing in limine the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 31 st March, 2008 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondent Bank. This petition came up first before this Court only on 5th May, 2010. However, the petitioner had preferred a review of the order dated 12 th January, 2009 of the National Commission and which review was also dismissed on 27th August, 2009. Not only so, the petitioner filed SLP (Civil) No. 19246/2009 to the Supreme Court which was also dismissed in limine on 7th December, 2009. It is after waiting fo...
Delhi State Bharat Scouts and Guides Vs. Land and Development Office
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
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 in Digest? Yes 1. The Petitioner, Delhi State Bharat Scouts and Guides, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and affiliated to the Bharat Scouts and Guides, challenges the action of the Respondent Land and Development Office (L&DO;) in the Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD), Union of India in cancelling the lease in its favour in respect of land measuring 9.86 acres at Nizamuddin East (hereafter the premises in question), ordering re-entry therein and thereafter re-allotting the premises in question to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), Respondent No. 3 herein.2. The Petitioner states that on 26th November 1941, the Governor General of India in Council allotted the premises in question to the Petitioner and executed a perpetual lease deed. The lease deed described the land admeasuring ...
Pardeep @ Sonu Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
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 in the Digest? YES1. The appellant has challenged his conviction in Sessions Case No.123 of 2006, titled as State v. Pradeep @ Sonu, arising from the FIR No.737 of 2005, under Sections 376/506 Indian Penal Code, PS Okhla Industrial Area convicting the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing the appellant to undergo rigorous life imprisonment under Section 376 (2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and simple imprisonment for two years for offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts to comprehend the case are that on 16th August, 2005 an FIR was registered on the basis of statement made by a minor girl aged about 8 years, namely Khushbu @ Diksha. She had...
Shakuntala Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
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 in the Digest? YES1. The appellant, Shakuntala, has challenged her conviction under Section 302 r/w Section 34 and Section 201 r/w Section-34 of IPC by judgment dated 11th September, 2001 and her sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months and her sentence to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC.2. By the same judgment dated 11th September, 2001 in Sessions Case No. 125/2001 titled as State vs. Shakuntala, wife of Pritam Singh and Israr @ Bachan @ Bhura arising out of FIR No. 213/1996, PS Seelampur under Section 302/34 and 201...
Const.Tanveer Ahmed Khan and anr. Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
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 an incident of cattle crossing from the territory of India to Bangladesh at BOP Lal Bazaar the Commandant of the 46th Bn. BSF took cognizance of the offence report and reduced the allegation to writing in the form set out in Appendix VI of the BSF Rules 1969 i.e. drew out a charge sheet against the petitioners and on 29.7.2007, Rakesh Chauhan 2-IC functioning as the Commandant in the absence of the Commandant 46th Bn BSF ordered Pawan Kumar Asst. Commandant 46th Bn. BSF to prepare the Record of Evidence. In pursuance of the said order, Record of Evidence was prepared by Pawan Kumar and 4 prosecution witnesses were examined in the presence of the petitioners who were given an opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses, which opportunity they declined to avail and thus no witness was cross-examined.2. I...
SachIn Kumar Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
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. On 19.5.2009 at around 13:20 hours the petitioner had to be rushed to the Sub-Divisional Hospital at Sunderbani and therefrom to a Government Hospital, Jammu because his condition was serious. His colleagues found him unconscious and frothing from the mouth. Whereas the department claims that petitioner attempted to commit suicide, the petitioner asserts that being under severe mental distress on account of his heart throb Harpreet Kaur having broken off her relationship with him, in a state of depression he consumed 25 tablets of Multivitamins and Proteins Forte tablets.2. The petitioner was given a stomach wash and was saved. By save we mean his life was saved. But his career came under a cloud.3. The Commandant of the Unit to which petitioner was attached took cognizance of the offence report and reduced the alle...
Rajender Pal Singh Vs. Uoi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
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 joined the Indo-Tibet Border Police as a Sub-Inspector on 14.2.1995. The next promotional post available is that of an Inspector and to earn a promotion to which, as per service rules, it is mandatory for a Sub-Inspector to successfully undergo a promotion course called SO Tactic Course-cum-Departmental Promotion (E-List) Test. The entitlement of the petitioner enured in the year 2007 to be promoted and thus he was permitted to undergo the promotion course. He underwent the course but failed in the test held with effect from 24.9.2007 till 30.9.2007. He failed in DPET.2. The petitioner successfully cleared the course and the examination in the year 2008 and thus was placed in the approved E-List of Inspectors.3. The grievance raised in the writ petition is to the circular dated 15.11.2007 which reads ...
Ex Hav Ashok M Rao Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
1. The petitioner filed W.P No. 301 of 2008 before the Delhi High Court challenging the order dated 3.7.2006 passed by the Summary General Court Martial, whereby he was held guilty of having committed an offence under Army Act Section 69 and sentenced (a) to be reduced to the ranks; (b) to be dismissed from service; and (c) to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years in civil jail. The writ petition was transferred to this Tribunal and under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 the same is being disposed of by this judgment, treating it as an appeal. 2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are: The appellant was enrolled in the Army on 28.2.1990. On 7.3.2006, a surprise check was conducted in the unit of the appellant and a sum of Rs.95800/- was found from the box of the appellant. The said amount was seized and deposited in the Unit Treasury chest as directed by the Commanding Officer. A charge sheet was issued to the appellant. It reads: ARMY ACT SECTION 69 COMMITTING ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »