Delhi Court May 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.
indraprastha Power Generation Co. Ltd Vs. M/S Harvinder Singh and Co. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2011
1. These are the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) preferred to assail the award dated 10.8.2009 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator Shri S.M. Chopra, Former Additional District and Sessions Judge in relation to the claims made by the respondent contractor-claimant M/s Harvinder Singh & Co. against the petitioner-Indraprastha Power Generation Co. Ltd. 2. The petitioner issued an NIT for removal of 3,00,000 cum of ash deposit. The respondent submitted its bid. The petitioner vide the letter dated 20.01.2003 (Exhibit C-1) conveyed the intention of the petitioner to offer a quantity of 1,80,000 cubic metres of fly ash to the respondent at the negotiated rate of Rs.55.50 cubic metre to be completed in seven months, subject to the condition that the respondent extends the validity of its offer for the balance quantity, i.e., 1,20,000 cubic metres for seven months from the date of start of work of initial offer (i.e. pertaining to 1,80,...
Ms. Sudha Rani Gupta Vs. the Secretary, Govt. of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2011
1. By the impugned order dated 26th April, 2011, Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short, tribunal) has dismissed O.A.No.3955/2010 and M.A.No.2985/2010 filed by the petitioner-Sudha Rani Gupta on the ground of limitation. The tribunal in paragraph 4 of the impugned order has held as under:- "4. A perusal of the record reveals that after her non selection by the DPC in 2006, the applicant had made a number of representations and the same had been rejected by the respondents and the decision communicated to her as early as by a letter dated 10.04.2006. This had been followed by subsequent communications dated 20.09.2006 and 21.12.2006. In addition replies had also been given under the RTI. Likewise, the subsequent DPC impugned in the present OA pertains to the year 2008. In response to a query from the Bench as to why the applicant had not approached the Tribunal at the appropriate time, the submission on behalf of the applicant would be that she had been m...
Mehkar Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 20.09.2001 and Order of Sentence dated 24.09.2001, whereby, the appellant/accused was convicted by learned Special Judge under section 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years with a fine of `500/- on each count. In case of default in payment of fine he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months each. 2. The prosecution case as set up in the complaint(Ex. PW3/A) against the appellant/ accused in brief is that, Rakesh Kumar, s/o Jugal Kishore, r/o Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (PW-3) was accused vide FIR No. 304/93 and 435/94 P.S. Nizammuddin lodged at the instance of his wife. The said cases were pending before Ms.Sunita Gupta, the then MM New Delhi. The appellant/accused ASI Mehkar Singh was posted in PS Nizammuddin and was the Investigation Officer (IO) of FIR No. 304/93, whereas HC Padam Singh was the IO of F...
Dr. Som Dutt Butta Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2011
1. Since 1969 a dispute over a small area of about 14 sq. yds. under a staircase on the rear side of shops 20 and 20 A in Khan Market, New Delhi (hereafter the shops in question) leading up to the first floor premises also known as the Central Hall has remained unresolved. The dispute, which reached this Court in 1976, is whether this area was wrongly included in the lease and conveyance deed dated 17th November 1961 executed in favour of the Petitioner Dr. Som Dutt Butta (now deceased) in respect of the shops in question and whether it was for the exclusive use of Respondent No. 6 Mr. Dhanpat Rai Ahuja (now deceased), the lessee of the Central Hall. 2. This writ petition by Dr. Butta challenges an order dated 4th January 1972 by the Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner (ACSC) in the Office of the Regional Settlement Commissioner (RSC) allowing a suo moto revision under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (DPCRA) and cancelling the lease ...
Chand Ram Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2011
1. As recorded in the order dated 19th May 2011 when after hearing arguments we had reserved the matter for judgment only 2 submissions were urged. The first was that there was no evidence to establish that the petitioner abused the instructor and the JCC staff. Second was that the penalty levied was disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. 2. Though the arguments advanced were brief, we were constrained to reserve the matter for writing our opinion inasmuch as the Record of Evidence was in Hindi and being handwritten, we thought it better to peruse the same in chamber, although learned counsel for the parties had highlighted relevant portions thereof during hearing. Since petitioner had lost his job we thought it prudent to re-assure ourselves that justice was done to the petitioner. 3. Petitioner was charge-sheeted for having committed an act of misconduct, in that, it was alleged that while undergoing JOC course at GC-II CRPF Ajmer, on 11.8.1991, petitioner consumed alcohol w...
Purshottam Chopra and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2011
1. Vide order dated 6.8.1998 the appellants were charged for having acted in furtherance of a common intention and having murdered Sher Singh at 3:00 PM on 18.12.1997 at a vacant plot No.17, Goverdhan Park, Dal Mill Road, Uttam Nagar. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge and hence the prosecution led evidence. At the trial, 19 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and the appellants led no evidence in defence. 2. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.1.1999 the appellants have been convicted for the offence of having murdered Sher Singh and vide order on sentence dated 2.2.1999 they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The conviction has been rested on 2 dying declarations, accepting to be true, as made by Sher Singh firstly to Dr.Sushma PW-8 and as recorded on the MLC Ex.PW-8/A of Sher Singh followed by Sher Singhs statement Ex.PW-16/B recorded by SI Rajesh Kumar PW- 16 who had reached Safdarjung Hospital where Sher Singh had been removed in a PCR ...
Harish Chander Malik Vs. Vivek Kumar Gupta and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2011
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2008 passed by the learned trial court rejecting the plaint of the appellant under order VII Rule 11 CPC as being barred by law. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for disposal of the present appeal are that plaintiff (appellant herein) claims himself to be the owner of shop bearing no.12, Esplanade Road, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, measuring 30 sq. yards (hereinafter referred to as.the shop), having purchased the same from its erstwhile owner, Sh. Preet Kumar Gupta, on 15.9.2003 by means of a Registered Sale Deed. Smt. Bimla Kumari Gupta, the mother of respondents no. 1-3, was inducted as a tenant in the said shop. The tenancy of the mother of respondents no. 1-3 was terminated by the erstwhile owner Sh. Preet Kumar Gupta in the month of January, 2000. The mother of respondents no.1-3 died in the month of February, 2000, and thereafter respondents no.1-3 continued to remain in possession of the said shop. As per...
Ex Rifleman Shailendra Singh Negi Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2011
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the Summary Court Martial (SCM) proceedings of 7.12.1994 held at Gandhi Nagar, wherein he was sentenced to be dismissed from service for having committed an offence under Section 39(a) of the Army Act i.e. absenting himself without leave. The appellant seeks quashing of the SCM proceedings as well as reconstitution of the Medical Board to assess the disabilities suffered by the appellant while in service. 2. The appellant was enrolled as a Sepoy in the Garhwal Rifles on 24.9.1983 and at the time of his enrolment, he was medically examined and found to be physically fit. Thereafter, he was posted to 12 Battalion Garhwal Rifles and continued to serve with this unit till his dismissal from service. From 1983 when he was enrolled till he was dismissed on 7.12.1994 he has served in hard area as well as participated in the Indian Army operations in Sri Lanka i.e. Op PAWAN. The appellant argued that he received a bullet injury in his left thigh in July 1998 wh...
Lt Col Gurdev Singh Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2011
1. The writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India was brought against the findings of General Court Martial (GCM), Roorkee dt 14.06.1997 whereby convicting the appellant for the offences under sections 52 (f) and 63 of Army Act on different counts and sentencing him to cashiering and 6 months RI. Simultaneously, a prayer has also been made that the order passed by the appropriate authority rejecting statutory complaint should also be set aside. It is said that the entire case was fabricated against the appellant. There was no reason for him to have placed the supply orders without having approval of the Station Commander passed on the recommendations of the Board of Officers. As a matter of fact verbal approval used to be given by the Stn Cdr. Even otherwise whatever the supply orders were given by him, those were in consonance with the recommendations of the Board of Officers. Merely on conjectures and surmises the guilt of the accused-appellant was established by th...
Gulshan Kumar Anand Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2011
1. This is a petition for grant of Letter of Administration with the Will annexed to it, in respect of the estate of late Shri Boota Mal Anand, father of the petitioner, who died on 30.5.1979. It is alleged in the petition that late Shri Boota Mal Anand had executed a Will dated 28.7.1978 and the petitioner is the sole beneficiary under the aforesaid Will. The Testator Shri Boota Mal was survived by 06 legal heirs including the Objector Shri Pishori Lal. The objections to the petition have been filed only by Shri Pishori Lal, other son of the Testator. He has denied the Will set up by the petitioner and has further stated that the alleged Will must have been obtained under undue influence and pressure and it is contrary to the earlier expressed desire of the Testator. It is also alleged that at the time of alleged Will late Shri Boota Mal was seriously ill and was not of a sound disposing mind. It is also claimed that signature does not appear to be that of Shri Boota Mal. 2. It is als...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »