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.
Devyani International Limited. Vs . Mcd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2011
1. The petition impugns the sealing action on 30 th March, 2011 by the respondent MCD of the portion of the ground floor of property No.J-12/38, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110 027 in the tenancy of the petitioner. Prior thereto, the respondent MCD had served a notice dated 23 rd March, 2011 W.P.(C)2284/2011 Page 1 of 6 under Section 345-A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 calling upon the owner / occupant to stop the misuse and to bring the premises within the permitted use as per the Master Plan Delhi 2021 failing which, it was threatened that the premises will be sealed without further notice. It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner as well as the landlord of the petitioner filed affidavits with the respondent MCD to the effect that the misuse had been stopped and the use of the property was in accordance with the MPD-2021 but nevertheless the sealing was effected without even considering whether there was any misuse or not.2. The counsel for the respond...
Mohd. Iqbal and ors. Vs. the State of Delhi.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2011
1. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 27.01.1999, appellants Mohd. Iqbal, Mohd. Haroon, Barkat Begum, Gulzar Begum and Abdul Wahid have been convicted for the offence of having caused the death of Muslima (herein after referred to as the "Deceased") by setting her on fire, for which offence they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine in sum of Rs.2,000/- each; in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. During the course of hearing of the present appeals, we were informed by the learned counsel for appellant Mohd. Iqbal that appellant Mohd. Iqbal is no more in the world of living, which information was verified by the learned counsel for the State. In that view of the matter qua Mohd.Iqbal the appeal would stand abated.3. The case set up by the prosecution against the appellants was that the deceased along with her husband Abdul Khaliq used to reside on the first floor of house bearing Municipal No.436, Shehzada Bagh, Delhi; that Moh...
Deepti Mandlaus. Vs. State (Govt of Nct of Delhi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2011
1. This petition on behalf of a mother (Deepti Mandlaus) seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents, in particular her husband, Nitin Mandlaus (respondent no.2), to produce her minor child, Armaan Mandlaus before this court and to further direct respondent no.2 to hand over custody of the child to the petitioner.2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, respondent no.2 and the child, who are all Indian citizens, were residing in Canada since 04.04.2009 where the petitioner and respondent no.2 were working as software professionals. The respondent no.2 and the child came to India on a visit for the duration 23.06.2010 to 10.08.2010. For this purpose, the petitioner, who stayed back in Canada, had given her consent for travel of the minor son with the father outside Canada i.e., to New Delhi, India. The Respondent no.2 decided not to return to Canada. He got Armaan admitted to a school in NOIDA, India and had the return tickets cancelled.3. Before we address the leg...
Rukia Begum Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2011
1. Altogether 8 persons were put on trial for commission of the offence under Section 302 and 201 read with Section 34 as also Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Jaibunissa died during the trial, whereas accused Rukiya Begum, Nasreen, Mansoor and Mohmmed Ghouse were acquitted of all the charges. However accused Issaq Sait, Nasarath and Mujahid were held guilty of the offence under Section 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded life imprisonment and seven years imprisonment respectively. State of Karnataka, aggrieved by the acquittal of Rukia Begum Nasreen, Mansoor and Mohammed Ghouse preferred appeal whereas appellant Issaq Sait and Mujahid aggrieved by their conviction and sentence also preferred appeal. State also preferred appeal seeking enhancement of sentence. All the appeals were heard together and the High Court by its common judgment dated 28th of May, 2007 dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants Issaq Sait and Mujahid. The app...
Savita Rani JaIn and ors. Vs. Mcd and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2011
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 two writ petitions have been preferred impugning the notices dated 8th March, 2010 under Section 345A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 calling upon the petitioner in each case to stop misuse of property known as 1, Shiv Mandir, Taimoor Nagar, New Delhi within 48 hours and threatening sealing of the property upon failure to so stop the misuse.2. The petitions came up first before this Court on 18 th March, 2010 & 19th March, 2010 respectively when while issuing notice to the respondent MCD, the order dated 24th February, 2010 of the Nodal Steering Committee appointed by this Court in Kalyan Sanstha Social Welfare Organization v. Union of India and pursuant whereto the action of sealing against the properties of the petitioners was threatened, was stayed with the clarification that the stay...
G.D.Wazir Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2011
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. The petitioner was enlisted in the Indo-Tibet Border Police Force (ITBPF) as a constable on 25.11.1983. He earned a promotion to the post of L/Naik in the year 1991 and to the post of Naik in the year 1993. On 7.2.1993 he was deputed to the 11th Bn. ITBP and was attached to the B coy. On 27.2.1993 he received an office order suspending him from duty w.e.f. 27.2.1993 and informing him about an inquiry being contemplated against him.2. On 18.03.1993 the petitioner was served with a Memorandum of Charge wherein 4 articles of charge levied upon the petitioner were listed as under:"Statement of Articles of charges framed against No.837040429 NK/GD Wazir of B Coy 11th Bn. ITB Police Ludhiana (PB)ARTICLE IThat the said No.837040429 NK/GD Wazir (Under Suspension) B Coy 11th Bn, while holding the post of NK/GD left the Unit...
Ex. Flg. Officer Subhash Pandey Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2011
1. This writ petition has been filed by the appellant under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in the Honble Delhi High Court. On creation of this Tribunal, the writ petition was transferred and is being dealt with under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act. Earlier the appellant had moved the Honble High Court of Judicature Allahabad, Lucknow Bench by filing Writ Petition No. 653 (SB)/2006 which was dismissed on 22nd November 2006 for want of jurisdiction. This order was assailed in the Honble Supreme Court vide SLP (C) No. 432/2006 which was also dismissed. 2. The appellant is aggrieved against the illegal and arbitrary order of the General Court Martial (GCM) held between 13th November 2000 and 11th January 2001 which sentenced him to be dismissed from service. The appellant was enrolled in the Indian Air Force (IAF) on 26th July 1985 and was subsequently commissioned as a Gazetted Officer in the administrative branch on 17th December 1994 in the rank of Pilot Officer. ...
K.S Tiwari Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2011
1. The petitioner filed W.P (C) No. 3599 of 1998 before the Delhi High Court seeking to quash the Summary Court Martial (SCM) proceedings, whereby he was held guilty of having committed the offence under Army Act Section 64(c) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to be dismissed from service. Simultaneous prayer also has been made in the writ petition to direct the respondents to reinstate him in service and to hold a Medical Review Board to examine the petitioner so as to made consequential recommendation for reinstatement of the petitioner. Subsequently the case was transferred to this Tribunal on its formation and is being disposed of, treating it as an appeal under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are: The appellant joined the Indian Army as Signalman on 2.7.1970. He was then posted to 1st Armoured Division Signal Regiment, Jhansi (M.P), from where he was shifted to Ambala. While so...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›