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.
Yogender Singh Vs. Prem Lata and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
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 appellant-plaintiff filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 9.12.2004 passed in suit no.351/2004 by the learned Additional District Judge whereby the suit for possession in respect of part of property no. A-39 , Badli extension ,village Badli, Delhi -42 as well as for a decree of cancellation of some documents, injunction and mesne profits filed by him against the respondents-defendants was dismissed. 2. It was the case of the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred to be as the plaintiff) that he was owner of plot no. A-39, Badli Extension, Delhi which was 100 square yards plot and out of 100 square yards he had sold 50 square yards to one Shri Keshu Ram and had raised two storeyed house on the remaining 50 square yards area( hereinafter to be referred as 'the suit property'...
Sh.Ramaswamy S. Iyengar Vs. the State(Nct of Delhi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of Criminal Complaint being CC/32/1/2007 dated 07.02.2007 under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I.Act) pending the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini and setting aside the order dated 25th November, 2009 by which the petitioner and his co-accused have been summoned to appear and undergo trial.2. Short issue involved in the instant case is whether or not, Delhi Courts have jurisdiction to try the complaint under Section 138 N.I.Act.3. Briefly stated, facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that respondent No. 2 A.K.Mittal filed a complaint under Section 138 N.I.Act against the petitioner and others claiming that he is the owner of Flat No.204, B-Wing, Mohana Building, Doordarshan Employees Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Gokuldham, Dindoshi, Goregaon (East), Mumbai. The petitioner and his co-accused persons, on behalf of self and the society, agreed to purchase aforesaid flat from the complainant...
Shyam Bihari Singhal Vs. Bses Yamuna Power Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
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. This is a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The plaintiff is a consumer of the defendant in respect of connection no. K 623-1321193-IP installed at his business premises being B-14/7, Jhilmil Industrial Area, Shahdara, Delhi.2. The plaintiff had initially got sanctioned load of 17.92 KW but, he later appealed for its enhancement to 50 HP. Under a voluntary disclosure scheme floated by the defendant, the plaintiff declared his tampered meter and also deposited the relevant charges on 26.4.1999. His meter was then changed in May, 1999. The case of the plaintiff is that the meter was not sealed by the defendant at the time it was changed in May, 1999. According to the plaintiff, only paper seals were put on the meter but they were not properly pasted. It was claimed by the defendant that at the tim...
Smt. Kanta Sharma Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd
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 Yes in the Digest?1. The petition impugns the speaking order dated 27th January, 2011 of the respondent holding the petitioner guilty of Dishonest Abstraction of Energy (DAE) and the consequent demand for `2,29,085/-. 2. Since the Division Bench of this Court in B.L. Kantroo v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 154 (2008) DLT 56 has held that even a consumer is entitled to approach the Special Court set up under Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003, it is felt that the writ petitions be entertained only in cases where no factual controversy arises and where the speaking order can be quashed merely on an illegibility / breach of procedure as borne out from the speaking order and the other documents of the respondent.3. Finding that the petition in the present case raises a number of factual controversies also, it has been put to t...
N.P. Kamalesh Vs. the Deputy Director (Medical) National Board of Exam ...
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 No in the Digest?1. The petition impugns the letter dated 23rd February, 2011 of the respondent No.1 National Board of Examinations (NBE) refusing registration of the petitioner as a Diplomate of National Board (DNB) Trainee in the specialty of Gastro-Intestinal Surgery in the respondent No.2 PVS Memorial Hospital Ltd., Cochin, Kerala.2. The counsel for the respondent No.1 NBE appears on advance notice. Considering the nature of the controversy, need is not felt to issue notice to the respondent No.2 Hospital or to the respondent No.3 on whose complaint registration to the petitioner has been refused or to call for the counter affidavits. The senior counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondent No.1 NBE have been finally heard.3. The petitioner had appeared in the Common Entrance Test (CET) held in January, 201...
Rakesh Chauhan Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers No may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28 th February, 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby appellant along with co-accused Samiuddin @ Chotu has been convicted under Section 397 read with Section 392 IPC and under Section 457 IPC; sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 397 IPC; sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 457 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. Prosecution case as unfolded is that appellant and co- convict Samiuddin @ Chotu along with Mohd. Arif and Nazim forcibly entered in the second floor of premises bearin...
Rajesh Kr.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
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 20.06.1984 the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Railway Protection Special Force (hereinafter referred to as "RPSF"). In the year 1990 the petitioner was attached with detachment of E Coy of 7th Battalion, RPSF, which detachment took over the static guard of Malsian- Shahkot railway station outpost (herein after referred to as the "Railway Station") with effect from 29.06.1990. It be noted here that following persons attached with the detachment were deployed at the railway station for static station guarding duty under the command of HC Rup Singh Bardloi: (i) petitioner; (ii) Naik Amarjit Yadav (herein after referred to as the deceased); (iii) Naik Govind Shah; (iv) Naik Indresh Prasad Yadav; (v) Naik Sher Singh; (vi) Const.Sat Pal Singh; (vii) Const.Birsa Torpo; (viii) Const.Ram Pratap; (ix) Const.Ram...
Padam Prasad Sharma Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes ORDERIntroduction1. Stating that he is a citizen of India and a resident of Nandu Gaon, Harrboty, Poklok, Kamrang, South Sikkim and an educated farmer, the Petitioner has filed this writ petition for a direction to the Union of Indian in the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to decide a complaint made by him on 9th June 2008 against Respondent No. 3, Shri Pawan Kumar Chamling, who is at present the Chief Minister of Sikkim.2. Although a further prayer is for a declaration that Respondent No. 3 "has ceased to be a citizen of India and disqualified to hold any constitutional post", Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner, at the outset stated that the Petitioner does not press that prayer. He confines his prayer to a direction to the MHA to decide his complaint dated 9th June 2008.3. Earli...
Jagraj Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
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. Arguments were partly heard on 7.3.2011.2. In view of sub-rule (6) of Rule 63 of the BSF Force Rules 1969, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the argument which he had urged on the last date of hearing; of the petitioner being granted less than 4 days time to prepare the defence. The reason is obvious. Requirement of 4 days time to be granted to prepare a defence is the requirement of sub-rule (2), (3) and (4) of Rule 63. As per sub-rule (6) of said rule the said provisions do not apply if the trial is before a Summary Security Force Court.3. Petitioner has been tried at a Summary Security Force Court.4. The record of the Summary Security Force Court shows that after the petitioner was brought before the Court and arraignment took place, 2 charges were read out and qua charge No.1 it stands recorded t...
WIn Cable and Datacom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S Grass Link Advertising Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
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 is a suit for recovery of Rs. 24,69,079/-. The plaintiff company is engaged in the business of reception and distribution of satellite television, broadcast signal and other electronic signal primarily to various local cable operators and business affiliates. Defendant No. 1 is running an advertising agency which procures advertisements from various companies for advertising through cable feed of the plaintiff company. Defendant no.2 is a leading multinational company and the case of the plaintiff is that the defendant no. 1, while placing orders for running advertisements on the cable network of the plaintiff company, was acting as an agent of defendant no. 2 company. It is alleged that the plaintiff company, on request of defendant no. 1 advertised products of defendant no. 2 through its cable networ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »