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.
Satya Pal Chopra Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
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. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the Addl. District Judge dated 18.05.2009 whereby the probate petition filed by the appellant for seeking letters of administration with Will dated 05.08.1989 annexed has been dismissed.2. Briefly stating the facts of this case are; that a probate petition was filed by the appellant seeking probate of the Will dated 05.08.1989 alleged to have been executed by deceased Smt. Suhagwanti with respect to property No. 17/7, Pant Nagar, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi bequeathing that property in favour of the appellant to the exclusion of all other legal heirs of the deceased testatrix. Smt. Suhagwanti expired on 08.01.1991 leaving behind three sons, namely, Shri Satya pal Chopra the appellant, Shri Yash Pal Chopra, Shri Sushil Kumar Chopra the other two brothers of ...
Delhi State Indust.Devp.Corpn. Vs. Delhi Young Entrep. Assoc. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed Yes to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes1. The sole arbitrator Shri Omesh Saigal, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation, passed the following award:"And whereas on perusal of the file it was seen that both the parties agreed to had file their evidence by way of affidavit and accordingly, I fixed the matter of evidence on 31.07.1992, notice for which was sent to parties under Registered A.D. cover and U.P.C. on 31.07.1992 representative for the claimant was present but none appeared for the respondent. In the interest of justice I decide to give one more opportunity to the respondent to adduce their evidence. Accordingly, matter was adjourned to 14.08.1992 was sent to respondents and their counsel under Regd. Ad. cover and UPC with directions that in case they failed to appear on 14.08.1992, representative ...
Rajinder and ors. Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papersmay 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. This judgment will dispose of Crl. Appeal Nos. 296/1997, 477/1997, 38/1998 and 98/1998. They are directed against a common judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 20.05.1997, in SC No. 61/1996.2. The prosecution case, in brief was that on 05.09.94, around 3:00 PM, the Appellant Rajender along with the Appellant Pappu @ Pandit, were urinating in Trilok Puri, near 19/350, under the influence of liquor. It was alleged that PW-2 Chander Mohan was passing by, and asked them not to do so. At this, the two of them, i.e. Rajender and Pappu, caught hold of PW-2; upon hearing the commotion, Vijay (hereafter, "the deceased") and others from the locality (mohalla) reached the spot, and pacified the attackers; upon this, Rajender, while leaving the spot, threatened Vijay and his brother (Bal ...
Govt. of Nct of Delhi Vs. Shri Sunil Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?YES2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?NO1. This is an application by the petitioner/applicant for setting aside the order of dismissal dated 30th August, 2010 of the writ petition in default of appearance of the counsel for the petitioner and anyone on behalf of the petitioner.The applicant has contended that the counsel for the applicant was not well and had requested his associate to attend the hearing in the Court. However the associate could not reach the Court in time leading to dismissal of the writ petition in default. For the reasons stated in the application there is sufficient cause for setting aside the order dated 30th August, 2010 dismissing the writ petition in default of appearance of counsel for the petitioner. Consequently the application is allowed, the order of dismissal dated 30th August, 2010 is set aside and the writ petition is...
R.D. Verma Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 29th October, 1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (for short the tribunal) in O.A. No. 529/1995.2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts which are essential to be stated are that the petitioner on successful completion of the Subordinate Service Commission Examination conducted for the post of Inspector Central Excise during 1977 was offered the appointment on 23.11.1978 and joined in the service on 12.12.1978 at the Central Excise Collectorate, Bombay. On 30.4.1979, he submitted a representation to the Collector, Central Excise, Bombay requesting for transfer to Delhi on compassionate grounds. After receipt of the represen...
Sita Kashyap and Anothers Vs. Harbans Kashyap and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
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. The following reliefs have been claimed in this suit:-a) (i) a decree of partition in respect of all that property comprised of land and building and bearing No.5A, Guru Govind Singh Marg, (New Rohtak Road), Karol Bagh, New Delhi, as per plan enclosed with the plaint;(ii) a preliminary decree for partition of the suit property No.5A, Guru Govind Singh Marg, (New Rohtak Road), Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110 005 for dividing the said property by metes and bounds and if it is ascertained that this property is not capable of being divided by metes and bounds then to order sale of property No.5A, Guru Govind Singh Marg, (New Rohtak Road), Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110 005 and to divide the proceeds in the ratio of 1/4 share for each of the two plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and the remaining 1/4 to defendants No.2 and 3 to...
Mohammad Amir Mohammad Khan Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
1. Whether reporters of the local papers 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. By this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for declaring the Enemy Property (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 2010 (for short the Ordinance) by which sub- section 3 of Section 5 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 (for brevity the Act) and Sections 18A, 18B and 26 of the Act were inserted as unconstitutional, void and inoperative.2. At the very inception, we are obliged to state that this Court while issuing notice had passed the following order:"As an ad-interim measure it is directed that any action taken in pursuance to the ordinance shall be subject to result of this writ petition and that apart the respondent shall not create any third party interest even remotely so that while ultimately disposing of the writ petitioner no impediment is ...
Pratima Devi and ors Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
1. Whether the 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? Yes 1. By judgment dated 28.03.2001, the trial court has convicted all the 5 accused persons in the case FIR No.216/1999 PS Lodhi Colony, New Delhi, under Section 302/34 IPC on the charge that all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intentions, had burnt deceased Sonu by pouring kerosene oil on him on 07.06.1999 at about 11:00 PM in Jhuggi No.181, A block, Rajiv Gandhi Camp within the jurisdiction of PS Lodhi Colony, New Delhi.2. Vide order dated 30.03.2001 all the accused persons were punished with life imprisonment, and payment of fine of Rs 10/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the Court. The benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was also given to them.3. Appellants Pratima Devi, Basanti and Kavita have jointly challenged the aforesaid judgment/order by filing Cr...
D.D. Kaushik Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 29th October, 1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (for short the tribunal) in O.A. No. 529/1995.2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts which are essential to be stated are that the petitioner on successful completion of the Subordinate Service Commission Examination conducted for the post of Inspector Central Excise during 1977 was offered the appointment on 23.11.1978 and joined in the service on 12.12.1978 at the Central Excise Collectorate, Bombay. On 30.4.1979, he submitted a representation to the Collector, Central Excise, Bombay requesting for transfer to Delhi on compassionate grounds. After receipt of the represen...
Ms. Anita Bishnu Vs. State Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?1. Subject matter of the suit for partition instituted by Plaintiff - Deepak Kumar as well as the Probate case filed by Petitioner - Ms. Anita is common i.e. residential property No. B-249, EPDP Colony, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'). They are the legal heirs of late Sh. G.C. Bishnu. Plaintiff - Deepak Kumar is claiming partition of the suit property on the basis of natural succession while asserting that he has 1/6th share in it, whereas Petitioner - Ms. Anita relies upon a Will of 14th August, 1972, vide which the suit property was bequeathed to her and has thus sought probate on the basis of the aforesaid Will. The remaining two legal heirs - Ashok Kumar and Kalyani, are with Petitioner - Ms. Anita and the other two legal heirs i.e. Ms. Manisha and Ms. Sona have joine...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »