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.
Ex.Const.Jandel Singh. Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2011
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? PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. The petitioner, enrolled with the Border Security Force as a constable was sent to its Academy at Tekanpur in the year 1980 and after completing his basic training was appointed as a constable with the Force on 10.10.1981. After several postings in different units, he was attached to the 94th Bn. on 17.03.1993 where he performed duties of an Adjutant. It was complained against the petitioner that on 15.01.1995 he was found creating a nuisance in front of civilians in a state of intoxication and that when brought to the barracks he assaulted a sentry Ct.Puran Mal who was on duty and damaged the telephone of GD office by kicking it.2. There is a dispute regarding what happened on 15.01.1995 after the alleged incident. Whereas the petitioner alleges that on 15.01.1995 he was placed under close arr...
Nusarat Tabassum. Vs. N.D.M.C. and Another.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-2011
1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 5.4.2010 passed by the Trial Court, wherein the Trial Court has condoned the delay in filing an appeal in favour of the respondent.2. The brief facts of this case are that the shop No.195, Palika Bazar, Cannaught Place, New Delhi was allotted to the 2nd respondent by the 1st respondent Council on license basis. Subsequently the petitioner joined the 2nd respondent in terms of partnership deed dated 2.5.2003. However, the partnership suffered dissolution in view of the dissolution deed dated 25.8.2003 according to which the petitioner remained in occupation of the shop in question with full knowledge and notice of the respondent Council. The shop was regularized by the 1st respondent in the name of the petitioner. Since the term of the license expired, the respondent (NDMC) approached the Estate Officer for seeking eviction of the petitioner and respon...
Randhir Singh, and anr. Vs. State of Delhi.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-2011
1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 27.01.1999 by which the appellants have been convicted for offences punishable under Section 323/302/307/34 IPC and vide order on sentence of even date have sentenced the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine in sum of `1000 and in default to further undergo RI for 3 months each for offence of murder. For the offence of attempt of murder they have been sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years. For the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC they have been fined `500.2. 3 co-accused Harish Chand @ Bablu, Ram Kumar and Vijay Kumar have been acquitted for the charge under Section 302 and 307 IPC. They have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC for which they have been sentenced to pay fine in sum of `500. The 6th co-accused Ved Prakash had died and hence proceedings qua him stood abated.3. We are thus concerned with only the appellants as the 3 co-accused have not c...
Faeel Ahmed and Others. Vs. Islam Ahmed.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-2011
1. Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be referred in the Digest? Yes S. L. BHAYANA, J.The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.3.2009 passed by the Trial Court, wherein application to lead additional evidence has been dismissed.2. The brief facts of this petition are that the respondent instituted a suit for possession and declaration against the petitioners. The petitioners engaged Mr. Mushahid Ali, Advocate to contest their above stated suit, wherein the written statement was also filed on behalf of the petitioners. Petitioners counsel took them in confidence that since it is a civil matter therefore, it is not essential for them to appear on each and every date of hearing and whenever their presence in the court will be required, he will inform the petitioners.3. The petitioners advocat...
Thyssen Krupp Werkstoffe Gmbh. Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-2011
1. This Appeal has been filed under Section 37(1)(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C; Act for short) assailing the Judgment dated 5.2.2010 delivered by the learned Single Judge. The disputes arose in 1995, and despite the existence of an arbitration clause, is still awaiting quietus. We may mention that the Judgment is a very detailed one in which all the grounds have been meticulously and minutely dealt with, virtually as if Objections necessitated a hearing akin to that of a Regular First Appeal. In this regard, we may reiterate the prefatory observations made in Shree Vinayak Cement vs- Cement Corporation of India, 142(2007) DLT 385(DB) to the effect that it is clearly impermissible, in view of the provisions of Section 34 of the A&C; Act, to require the learned Single Judge seised with the Objections, to peruse the complete records with a view to reappraise the materials, including evidence available on the record of the Arbitral Tribunal. It had further been obser...
Amrik Singh (Lovely), and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-2011
1. Both these writ petitions seek a direction to Respondent No. 1 Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to withdraw the Police Medal for gallantry conferred on Respondent No. 3, Mr. Amod Kanth, and Respondent No. 4, Mr. S. S. Manan, by a Presidential Notification No. 64 dated 7th June 1985. Factual background2. The Petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11706 of 2005 is Mr. Amrik Singh (Lovely) s/o late Mr. Faqir Singh and the Petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1760 of 2005 is Mr. Trilok Singh s/o late Mr. Amir Singh. Mr. Faqir Singh and Mr. Amir Singh were brothers. Their family had migrated during the partition and settled in Delhi. They were residing at House No. 2176, Street No. 1, Chuna Mandi, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. Mr. Amrik Singh, with his mother Smt. Gurbachan Kaur and four brothers, one sister-in-law and her two children and one minor sister, lived on the first floor. In October 1984, one of their relatives Mr. Narinder Singh also came to stay with them. On the ...
The Federation of Hotels and Restaurants Association of IndiA. Vs. Uni ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-2011
(1) These Civil Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate writ striking down Sections 2(ff), 13, 33(3), 34(3) of the Copyright Act, 1957 as these provisions are perceived by the Petitioners as being violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. In WP(C) No.452/1999 & WP(C) No.914- 1040/2009, the Indian Performing Rights Society (hereinafter referred as IPRS) stands impleaded as Respondent No.2, Phonographic Performance Ltd. (hereinafter referred as PPL) as Respondent No.3 and the Registrar of Copyrights as Respondent No.4. In WP(C) No.23787-89/2005 & WP(C) No.3870-3995/2009, the IPRS has not been impleaded. The Prayers contained in these two set of Writ Petitions read thus:- a. declare by an appropriate writ order or direction, Section 2(ff), 13, 33(3) and 34(3) of the Copyright Act, 1957, to be ultra vires Article 14 & 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India; orb. issue a writ of mandamus or any...
M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Sudha Rani and Others
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-2011
Kanwal Inder, Member 1. Vide this appeal, the appellant is challenging the order of the District Consumer Forum dated 22.7.2008 whereby it has been directed to pay Rs.5 lakhs towards insurance amount, Rs.1 lakh towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation to the respondent No.1 to 3 (complainants of the original case). 2. The respondents have filed reply. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. As per record the respondent No.1 to 3 filed complaint against appellant and the respondent No.4 Bank on the ground that they are widow, son and daughter of late Shri Ramji Lal, who was holder of HDFC Bank credit card No.4346771001782037 on which he was having Life Insurance Policy issued by the appellant which was accident claim-cum-accidental death policy. The sum assured was Rs. 5 lakhs. The policy was taken with card in June, 2003. Shri Ramji Lal suffered accidental death on 21-22 December, 2003 midnight due to Haemorrhagic Shock due to in...
Mohd. Javed, Mohd.Akhtar, Manoj Kumar Singh, and Ikramul Haq @ Vishal. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-2011
1. These above noted appeals arise from the judgment dated 25th August, 2008 in session case no. 93 of 2003 arising from FIR No. 23 of 2000 PS Nand Nagri u/s 364 A/302 /34 of IPC titled State Vs Manoj Kumar Singh, Mohd Akhtar; Mohd Javed, Ikramul Haq and Manoj Kumar @ Manju s/o Sh.Dhanpal convicting accused Manoj s/o Bindeshwari, Ikramul Haq, Akhtar and Javed u/s 120 B,/364A r/w 120 of IPC and section 302 of IPC r/w 120 B of IPC and sentencing them by order dated 5th September, 2008 to undergo life sentence with fine of Rs.5000/- each u/s 120 B of IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment of three months; Life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months u/s 302 r/w section 120 B of IPC and life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months u/s 364A r/w section 120 B of IPC.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 3rd January,...
Bhupender Singh and Drojan Singh. Vs. the State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-2011
1. The appellants have challenged the judgment dated 21st March, 2007 in the Sessions Case No.38 of 2006, titled as State v. Bhupender Singh and Others arising from FIR No.164 of 1999, under Sections 302/399/34 of the Indian Penal Code, PS Mukherjee Nagar, sentencing Bhupender Singh and Drojan Singh for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 399/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offences u/s 302/34 of IPC, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and for rigorous imprisonment of 10 years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- for offences under Sections 392/34 of the Indian Penal Code and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16th June, 1999, one Jaswant Singh, S/o Sh.Mansa Ram, R/o 339, Bhai Parmanand Colony, Delhi complained that when he came back home on 16th June, 1999 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »