Delhi Court April 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.
Ramesh Prakash Vs. Shri Sukhbir Singh Bhati
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
1 This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2007 which had endorsed the findings of the trial Judge dated 07.02.2006 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Sukhbir Singh Bhati seeking permanent and mandatory injunction to the effect that the defendant be restrained from interfering and trespassing upon the portion of the property of the plaintiff (measuring 500 square yards and as depicted in green colour) i.e. property bearing No. C-17/231, Khajuri Colony, Gokalpuri, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „suit property) as also with a further direction that the defendant be directed to demolish the unauthorized construction raised upon a portion of this suit property (114 square yards as depicted in red colour) had been decreed in his favour. 2 The plaintiff along with his wife claimed to be the owner and in exclusive and uninterrupted physical possession of the suit property as also the superstructure raised thereupon. The plaintiff had earlier purchased 200...
Sh.Gela Ram Vs. Sh.Brahm Pal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2005 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 30.8.2005 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Gela Ram seeking possession and damages qua the suit property i.e. a plot of land measuring 120 sq. yards bearing no.67, situated in Ambedkar Basti, had been dismissed. 2. The case set out by the plaintiff is that he is the owner of the aforenoted suit property; Sangat was the erstwhile owner; after his death his daughter Shivdevi became the owner of the suit property; she had converted the estate into a residential house. Shivdevi and her husband Nanak had transferred the aforenoted suit property in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.3000/-; on 27.9.1979 an agreement to sell, GPA and registered receipt had been executed in favour of the plaintiff; he was given actual physical possession of the suit property. The further case of the plaintiff is that he had thereafter on 16.3.1982 filed a suit for p...
Mr.Fahad Hassan Vs. Jamia Milia Islamia University and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
1. This common order will dispose of three petitions bearing W.P.(C) No. 2640/2011, W.P.(C) No. 2641/2011 and W.P.(C) No. 2765/2011 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking relaxation of attendance and to be allowed to appear in the forthcoming final examinations. 2. The facts shorn of unnecessary details common to the three petitions are that the petitioners are the students pursuing M.A. (Mass Communication) from A.J.K. MCRC of Jamia Millia Islamia University. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2640/2011, a student of Ist year has 71.05% attendance; the petitioner in W.P.(C) 2641/2011 is also a student of the Ist year and has secured 71.05% attendance and the petitioner in W.P.(C) 2765/2011 , a student of IInd year has secured 65.78% attendance. The short point involved in the present petitions is that the requisite attendance for appearing in the annual examinations is 75% as per the relevant rules and therefore, the petitioners herein being short of attendance have been debar...
Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr Vs. Vinod Kumar Nagrath and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2007 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 12.09.2005 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of money had been decreed in the sum of Rs. 23,896/- along with the interest @ 6% per annum as also damages @ Rs. 200/- per day w.e.f. 14.07.99 to 18.08.99 which were also calculated with interest @ 6% per annum. The first appellate court had modified the decree of the trial judge only to the extent that the damages awarded at the rate of Rs. 200/- per day for the aforenoted period had been set aside. 2. Plaintiff was the owner of medium motor vehicle (MMV) i.e. Swaraj Majda which is an open pick-up van. Vehicle was initially registered with Transport Department of Delhi on 04.06.1987. All the taxes up to 31.03.1988 had been paid. No Objection Certificate in terms of Section 29-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 had been granted in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff, thereafter, applied to the Regi...
Sunil Kumar Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.12940/2009, titled as Jitender Singh v. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi and Others, dated 15th October, 2010. This writ petition was filed by Mr. Jitender Singh who had successfully cleared the examination process for being recruited as a Constable in the Delhi Police but was denied appointment on account of his being accused in some FIRs, although he was acquitted in all of them. 2. Notwithstanding the acquittal, the department had not issued the letter of appointment entailing challenging his non- appointment by Jitender Singh in O.A. No. 2543/06 filed before the Tribunal which was dismissed. Against dismissal of his petition, the Writ Petition (C) No.12940/2009 was filed which was allowed by another Bench of this Court holding that no specific findings had been rendered pertaining to Jitender Singh and under the circumstances, the order in the case of Jitender Singh...
Savita Alias Babbal Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
1. The present common judgment will dispose of the above four connected appeals. All the accused/Appellants were convicted by the trial court under Sections 302 read with Section 34, IPC; the Appellant Savita, in addition, was convicted under Section 203 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on receipt of DD No. 38A at about 2:24 AM on the night intervening of 02-03.12.1994, SI Sardar Singh reached at H. No.29/156, West Patel Nagar and found Manoj Girotra (the deceased) son of Jagdish Rai lying on the floor in a pool of blood in the first floor drawing room; blood was scattered on the floor, on the pillow and bed sheet. There were number of knife blows on the deceased's body. The bedroom almirahs were open, empty jewellery boxes were also lying on the ground. SI Sardar Singh recorded the statement of the wife of deceased Manoj (hereafter "Savita") who was present at the spot. She disclosed that she along with her husband was watching the film "Burning Train" on TV and at...
Anita Vs. Rita and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
1. One Shri Jai Rajan Panikar was a civil employee of the Indian Air Force. He had filed a petition for dissolution of his marriage with Smt. Anita (petitioner in both petitions). The said petition was dismissed and he had preferred an appeal to this Court against the order of dismissal of his petition seeking divorce. During the pendency of the appeal before this Court, the said Shri Jai Rajan Panikar died. Smt. Anita applied to the Air Force for release of family pension and other service benefits of the said Shri Jai Rajan Panikar. 2. At that stage, Smt. Rita and her two minor children Prerna and Hardek filed a suit before the Civil Judge claiming that the said Smt. Rita was the wife of Shri Jai Rajan Panikar and the minors Prerna and Hardek were his children and to inter alia restrain Smt. Anita from withdrawing the pensionary and other service benefits of Shri Jai Rajan Panikar. Though an interim order was granted initially in the said suit by the Civil Judge but the application f...
Jageshwar Dayal Vs. International Traders
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
1. The petitioner workman impugns the award dated 23 rd February, 2010 of the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference: "Whether the services of Sh. Jageshwar Dayal S/o Sh. Narayan have been terminated illegally and / or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief alongwith consequential benefit in terms of existing laws / Government notifications and to what other relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?" 2. The Industrial Adjudicator has found that the question of illegal termination of services of the petitioner workman did not arise since the petitioner workman was not performing his duty in the year 1996, having left the job in February, 1996 itself and therefore was not found entitled to any relief. 3. The writ petition has been filed after one year of the award and is accompanied with an application for condonation of the delay in re- filing the petition. However, there is no explanation whatsoever f...
Raman Bihari Lal Vs. Uoi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
1. The petitioner Raman Bihari Lal questions the order dated 16.6.1988 by which penalty of removal from service was inflicted upon him as also the order dated 6.4.1994 passed in Appeal modifying the penalty to one of compulsory retirement; the apparent intention being that the petitioner could earn such pension as would be payable proportionate to the service rendered. 2. The petitioner was employed as a Constable with the Railway Protection Force and was charged as under:- "Charges against constable Raman Bihari Lal s/o Bhikam Chand Constable Raman Bihari Lal of Cash Guard Coy No.22/Delhi is charged for an act of serious misconduct, fraud, chesting in that on 16/17.7.86: 1. He travelled without any proper authority in I class Coach No.1481 of 30 Dn with the intention to defraud. 2. Refused to present the ticket/pass for check on demand by authorized railway servant. 3. Refused to pay the railway dues on demand." 3. The statement of imputation appended with the charge-sheet reads as un...
Banwari Lal Vs.The Management of M/S Moolchand Kharaitiram Hospital
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2011
1. The writ petition impugns the award dated 8 th April, 2008 of the Labour Court deciding the preliminary issue framed as to the maintainability of the industrial dispute and holding that approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act having been granted to the respondent employer of its action of terminating the services of the petitioner for misconduct, the dispute raised by the petitioner to be barred on the principle of res judicata. 2. Notice of the writ petition was issued and a counter affidavit has been handed over by the counsel for the respondent in the Court and taken on record. 3. Being prima facie of the opinion that the matter needs to be remanded to the Labour Court, the writ petition has been taken up for hearing out of turn, at the show cause notice stage only. 4. I have on consideration of the case law on the subject, held in DTC v. Shyam Lal ILR (2010) V Delhi 431 that the scope of a proceeding under Section 33(2)(b) is entirely different from a reference on a disp...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »