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.
Braham Pal Vs. State Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
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. This application is filed by the appellant under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the accompanying appeal. By the impugned judgment dated 14.02.2011, the appellant was found guilty and convicted by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Branch, of the offences under Section 120B IPC read with Section 7 and 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') as also under Section 7 of the Act as well as Section 13(i)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act. As per the order on sentence dated 17.02.2011, the appellant was awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of `4,000/-, in default whereof, simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 120B IPC rea...
M/S. Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-2011
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? No1. Regard being had to the commonality of the primary controversy relating to the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi being involved in these writ petitions, they were heard analogously and the said issue is adverted to and dealt with by a singular order. For the sake of clarity and convenience, we shall adumbrate the facts in W.P.(C) No.6570/20102. Expressing doubt with regard to the correctness of the decision in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Union of India and others, AIR 2010 Delhi 43 (FB), a Division Bench thought it appropriate to refer the matter for reconsidered by a Full Bench and, accordingly, a Full Bench was constituted and the matter has been placed before us for the aforesaid purpose.3. Before we proceed to analyze and appreciate the ratio in New India Assurance Company Limited (su...
imran Vs. State (Nct) of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes1. Appellant has been convicted under Sections 394/452/341 IPC by the Trial Court; sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of `10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 452 IPC; sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of `20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 394 IPC. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Benefit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. has also been given to the appellant. It has been further ordered that sentences awarded in this case shall run consecutively, that is, after the expiry of sentences awarded to the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi vide order dated 10th April, 2007 in a case arisin...
industrial Development Bank of India Vs. Thapar Agro Mills Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes.1. Present appeal has been filed under Section 460(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rules 6, 9, 164 and 165 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 for directing the Official Liquidator to consider IDBI as secured creditor.2. The relevant facts of the present case are that appellant had advanced loan of Rs. 200 lacs to the company in liquidation vide Subscription Agreement dated 04th August, 1992. In accordance with the said agreement, the company in liquidation was to allot Non Convertible Debentures (in short "NCDs") after complying with the SEBI guidelines and other pre-requisites like appointment of trustees, creation of security etc.3. However, despite various reminders, the company in liquidation neither issued NCDs to the appellant nor paid interest or other charges in accordance with the agree...
Mcd. Vs. Sh. Bhanwar Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-2011
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 three petitions though impugn three separate awards/order of the Industrial Tribunal but all between the employer MCD and its same employee/workman.2. The workman on 8th October, 1996 filed a complaint with the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33A of the Industrial Tribunal Act, 1947 of the terms of his employment having been changed during the pendency of a general dispute between the employer MCD and the Chowkidar, Beldar, Bullockmen, Bhishties, Coolies, Machinemen, Hedgemen, Garden Chaudhary etc. employed with it. The terms of employment were alleged to have been changed by his transfer from Shahdara (North) Zone where he was then working to the Headquarters (Horticulture Deptt.).3. The first reference of the dispute between the employer MCD and the respondent workman was made on 7 th October, 1997 ...
Mumtaj Khan and ors. Vs. Sorub Etc
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
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? J U D G M E N T (ORAL)1. By way of this appeal, the appellants seek to impugn the judgment dated 30.03.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby the Claim Petition filed by the appellants under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act on account of death of their son in a motor accident was dismissed on the ground that the appellants had failed to establish that the alleged offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent No.1, the driver of the alleged offending vehicle.2. In the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants has placed on record certified copies of the charge-sheet dated 30.08.2006 and copy of the order dated 11.01.2010 passed by the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, which clearly shows that in view of the plea of guilt enter...
Shri Y.S. Tomar Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment No2. To be referred to Reporters or not No3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in the Digest ?1. By this writ petition a challenge has been made to the orders dated 07.02.1989 passed by the Appellate authority and order dated 23.04.1994 passed by the Reviewing Authority. Both the authorities are of respondent no. 1.2. The factual matrix in which the present writ petition has been filed requires to be noticed.2.1 The petitioner, who was the employee of respondent no. 1, at the relevant time as a Technical Assistant, Grade I, in District Bhatinda, had applied for leave. The petitioner sought leave for the period spanning 02.02.1987 to 25.04.1987. The leave, as requested, was sanctioned. Consequently, the petitioner sought and obtained Leave Travel Concession (in short, LTC); to which he was eligible. 2.2 It appears that on account of administrative exigencies, the leave of the petitioner had to be cance...
Saudagar Singh Vs. Govt of Nct of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
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 Digest? No 1. Both these writ petitions involve common questions and are accordingly being disposed of together by this judgment. The Petitioners were licencees of shops at the Inter-state Bus Terminal (ISBT) at Kashmere Gate. The challenge in the present petitions is to the amount of licence fee being charged from the Petitioners on the ground that it is exorbitant and arbitrary. Also, challenge is to the omission of the Respondents in allotting alternative shops to those shopkeepers at the ISBT who were dislocated on account of the project of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC).2. The case of the Petitioners is that in 1999 they were asked to hand over the vacant possession of the shops for the DMRC project with the assurance that they would be allotted shops at Dhaba Block and Departure Block.3. The Petitioner in Wri...
Sheikh Anis Ahmad Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
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 is an appeal filed by the appellant who sought letters of administration regarding Will dated 20.11.1984 allegedly executed by Mst. Nawab Begum, the deceased testatrix. The third respondent on the other hand contested the said probate petition. While describing the will relied upon by the appellant as forged and fabricated, she also set up another Will dated 05.06.1992 alleged to have been executed by Mst. Nawab Begum, the deceased testatrix in her favor bequeathing whole of her property which is a registered document and had been also attested by two witnesses.2. On the pleadings of the parties, learned ADJ framed the following issues:-1. Whether the deceased Smt. Nawab Begum had executed any valid will dated 5.6.1992 in favour of respondent no. 3 Mst. Gohar Sultan while in sound and disposing mind...
Laxman Dass Jalhotra Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
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. This petition has been filed by the father of the detenu (Manish Jalhotra) seeking a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for the release of the said detenu and for the quashing of the detention order dated 27.08.2010 issued by the respondent no. 2 purportedly under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act). The detention order was executed on 01.09.2010.2. The main ground of challenge to the detention order is that though the detention order is based upon, inter alia, the statement dated 09.03.2010 made by one Lokesh Garg and the statement dated 14.06.2010 made by the detenu, both purportedly under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and both of which were allegedly retracted, the retractions were not pla...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »