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.
Meenu Devi and ors. Vs. Sudesh Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-2011
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? CM No.4465/2009 in MAC. APP. 169/2009This is an application praying for condonation of 241 days' delay in filing the appeal. In view of the ground given in the application, the delay is condoned.The application stands disposed of.MAC. APP. 405/2008 and MAC. APP. 169/2009 and CM Nos.4463/2009 (stay) and 12242/2009 (under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC)1. By way of this order, it is proposed to decide two appeals arising out of the same accident, being MAC APP. No.405/2008, titled Smt. Meenu Devi and Ors. vs. Sudesh Kumar and Ors., filed by the appellants for enhancement of the compensation awarded to them in Suit No.992/2000 on account of the death of late Shri Dalip Kumar Verma, who died in a motor vehicular accident, and MAC. APP. No.169/2009, titled Rajesh Kumar vs. Meenu Devi and Ors., filed by the owner of the truck which was held...
M/S Jay Shree Tea and Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.1. This appeal has been directed against the order dated 31.10.1991 passed by Delhi Bench of Railway Claims Tribunal, whereby the claim of the appellant for recovery of `65809.17 as compensation for the damage caused to the consignment of ply wood and block boards which was booked by the appellant from Ultadanga (Eastern Railway) was damaged and was found wet while the goods were in possession of the Railway Administration.2. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant are the manufacturers of ply wood and its by products and their factory at Andaman & Nicobar Island had booked a consignment of 160 crates containing 2364 pieces plywood and block boards with the Railway Administration at Ultadanga for delivery at New Delhi, under Railway Receipt No. 724775 dated 3.5.1983. The normal period of tran...
M.Meena Kumari Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-2011
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, who we are informed has Post- Graduate Degree in Mathematics followed by a Masters Degree in Business Administration appeared at the competitive examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission for recruitment of Sub-Inspectors under the Central Para-Military Forces and successfully cleared the selection. She was allocated to the Central Industrial Security Force on 23.12.2006 and prior thereto she had served in Central Reserve Police Force as an Assistant Sub-Inspector from 16.2.2001 to 19.12.2006.2. Joining CISF the petitioner was posted at Bangaluru on 26.4.2008 and was staying at the Ladys Hostel of which Insp.Indu M.Kumar was the In-charge.3. As per the petitioner Insp.Indu M.Kumar used to allow her husband to stay with her at the Ladys Hostel which was contrary to the rules and when the...
Sanjay and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-2011
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. Of the 3 appellants, appellant No.1 Sanjay expired during pendency of the appeal while he was in Bangalore on 25.8.2009.2. The appeal continues qua appellant No.2 and 3 and qua Sanjay it is apparent that proceedings have abated and none desire to prosecute the appeal on behalf of Sanjay for the sake of his reputation and honour. But, since the facts are intermingled, we shall be referring to the 3 appellants as and when necessary.3. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 5.11.1998 Sanjay, his mother Satya Devi and his sister Baby have been convicted for the offence of having murdered Hukam Chand, the husband of Baby. The conviction has been sustained on the basis of the stated dying declaration Ex.PW- 16/B purportedly made by the deceased and recorded by ASI Hem Raj PW-16 on 13.5.1997.4. The only issue which we have...
M/S Rise Press Vs. Delhi Financial Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
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 claims to have taken a loan of `3,85,000/- from the respondent in the year 1982-83 for setting up a Letter Press Printing Unit. It is further the case of the petitioner that he took a plot of land in Shalimar Bagh Industrial Area on verbal understanding from its owner that the petitioner till purchase will pay `2,000/- per month for the said land and set up his Unit therein and subsequently purchased the said land on General Power of Attorney basis; that the machinery and equipment installed therein was hypothecated with the respondent; that the respondent did not release the total of the sanctioned loan inspite of repeated reminders; that in or about the year 1986 the earlier owner of the aforesaid plot of land filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner from the property aforesaid an...
M/S. Bata India Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the reference order dated 05.09.2007 passed by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Labour, under the provisions of Section 7B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").2. The facts of the case are that there was a dispute concerning about the termination of more than two hundred of shop managers between the petitioners and the respondent No.2, i.e., All India Bata Shop Managers Union. On 15.06.2007, the president of respondent No.2 wrote a letter addressed to the Chief Labour Commissioner asking him to refer the dispute to a National Tribunal. Thereafter, the responent No.1 passed the order dated 05.09.2007 and constituted a National Tribunal for A...
Gauhar HussaIn Vs. Ms.Mumtaz Ara
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-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 the judgment should be reported in Digest ?1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 02nd January, 2010 of learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby she dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 17/2009 filed by the petitioner against the order of learned M.M. dated 22nd July, 2009 dismissing the application under Section 340 CrPC.2. Briefly put, facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that the respondent Mumtaz Ara filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner, wherein she filed an affidavit that she had no source of income. That the petitioner came to know that the respondent has authored a book "Balwant Singh: Fun Aur Shakshiyat" and got it published in 2003. Petitioner claims that this bok has global circulation and from this, she has regular income. Thus he filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. seeki...
D.T.C. Vs. Satbir Singh and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
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. WP(C) 974/2001 was filed impugning the order dated 21st January, 2000 of the Industrial Tribunal rejecting the application dated 26th May, 1989 of DTC under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking approval of its action of the removal of the workman from the services of DTC. The said application was necessitated owing to the pendency then of a general dispute between the DTC and its workmen. Notice of the writ petition was issued and a reply to the writ petition was filed by the workman. However, the writ petition was disposed of on 2 nd December, 2002 in view of the judgment dated 25th September, 2002 of the Division Bench of this Court in Sardar Singh v. DTC. In or about February / March, 2006 DTC filed an application for revival of the writ petition on the ground of the judgment of ...
Baba Virsa Singh Foundation Vs. Gaon Sabha, Gadaipur and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-2011
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 petition impugns the order dated 18th November, 2010 of the Financial Commissioner, Delhi dismissing the Revision petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 187 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.2. The Revision petition was preferred against the inaction of the Revenue Assistant to enter the name of the petitioner as the person in possession of the land. The Financial Commissioner has dismissed the Revision petition on two grounds. Firstly, that the order against which Revision petition was preferred had not been produced and secondly on the ground that the application of the petitioner under Section 85 of the Act for declaration of the Bhumidari Rights also stood dismissed and appeal whereagainst was pending before the Addl. Collector.3. As far as the first of the aforesaid grounds is concern...
Ram Kishan Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-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 14.1.1999 the learned Trial Judge has convicted appellant Ram Kishan for the offence of having murdered his brother-in-law Rakesh as also for the offence of having attempted to commit suicide. Vide order on sentence dated 16.1.1999 he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence of murder and to undergo RI for 1 month for the offence of attempting to commit suicide.2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, let us commence by noting the defence of the appellant which he took when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. To the last question whether he had anything to say, appellant replied:- "I am innocent. I had a providential escape despite Rakeshs determined attempt to kill me by inflicting stab injury on my stomach and other parts of my person. I was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »