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.
Managing Committee of Shiksha Bharati Senior Secondary Public School V ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2011
1. The writ petition impugns the order dated 31 st March, 2009 of the Delhi School Tribunal allowing the appeal of the respondent no.2 Ms. Shikha Bhattacharya, declaring that she continues to be in the service of the petitioner School without any break and directing the petitioner to also pay to her 50% salary, allowance and other benefits from the period from 16th May, 1998 onwards, failing which the petitioner School was also directed to pay interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum. Notice of the writ petition was issued on 15th September, 2009 and it was also informed that the petitioner, without prejudice to its rights and contentions had offered reinstatement to the respondent no.2 and the respondent no.2 had accepted reinstatement and was working in the petitioner School with effect from 4th September, 2009. The effect and operation of the order dated 31st March, 2009 with respect to the back wages and other consequential reliefs was stayed. The said interim order continues ...
Shri Varun Sharma Vs. the State (Nct, Delhi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2011
1. Complainant (respondent No. 2) is husband of respondent No. 3. Petitioner is brother-in-law (wife's husband) of respondent No. 2. In the month of April, 1997, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 met each other in a train while travelling from Delhi to Hyderabad. They became friends. They continued to meet thereafter. With the passage of time love blossomed between them. Ultimately, they got married on 28th November, 1997 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Rathkhana, Bikaner according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. It appears that after the marriage their relations became estranged. Respondent No. 2, inter alia, alleged that respondent No. 3 had concealed her real age, her marital status and the fact that she was having two children out of her previous wedlock with one Wasif Khalil. She had also concealed that at the time of marriage with Wasif Khalil she had embraced Islam. Respondent No. 3 filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of nullity under Sections 5 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act,...
State Vs. Aslam
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2011
1. The State seeks leave to file an Appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.08.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge whereby Respondent Aslam was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302/ 34 IPC. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on receipt of information regarding presence of a dead body in Shop No.D-11/401, Sector-7, Rohini, Inspector Satya Prakash PW-16 (IO) reached the spot. He noticed several public persons gathered there. On entering the shop, dead body of Mohan Lal was found lying on the ground. There was an injury mark on the person of the deceased and blood was scattered in the shop. The IO recorded the statement Ex. PW-3/A of complainant Surjit @ Sagar and sent rukka Ex. PW-16/A to the Police Station on the basis of which this case was registered. The IO lifted blood stained earth, earth control and completed the formalities of sealing the recovered material. Statement of Joginder Singh (PW-6) was recorded. It came to light that Jogi...
Ranbir Singh Vs. Govt.of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2011
1. The respondents/Govt. of NCT and Ors. have sought review of the order dated 28th January, 2011 on the ground that there is a factual mistake incorporated in the order, pursuant to the statement of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, Sh. Ranbir Singh, has already reached the age of superannuation whereas, in fact, the petitioner will attain the age of superannuation on 28th February, 2022. The applicants have also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the review application. The applicants have contended that the departmental inquiry was ordered against the petitioner for misconduct of taking a govt. vehicle and demanding money from a truck driver for entry in the market, after which he was placed under suspension and the Disciplinary Authority had awarded the punishment of withholding one annual increment on temporary basis. 2. Against the order of punishment of withholding one annual increment, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner, however, th...
State Gnct of Delhi Vs. Mukesh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2011
1. The State had appealed against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in SC 80/2008. By the said judgment, the respondent was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 376/511 of IPC. The state contends that the sentence imposed was inadequate, and calls for its enhancement. 2. The facts, as found by the Trial Court, were that on 17.03.2008, the prosecutrix's father handed over the respondent (accused before the Trial Court), at about 3:45 PM. The police recorded the receipt of complaint, and the minor prosecutrix's statement, in her father's presence. She stated that when she was playing in the street, the respondent, a neighbour took her to his room, saying that he would show a movie. He then switched on a television, showing obscene pictures. When the prosecutrix said that the movie was obscene, the respondent said that it was good; he removed her underwear and laid her down. The prosecutrix also stated that the respondent lowered his p...
R.C. Kundu Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2011
1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26th March, 2002 and the order dated 27th March, 2002 of the learned Special Judge Mr. R.K. Gauba whereby the appellant/accused was convicted under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of four years with fine of `500/- on each count. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. Since the impugned judgment and order have been assailed on various grounds and the main challenge is centered around the analysis of the prosecution witnesses as done by the learned Special Judge, it would be useful to briefly narrate the facts of the case. 3. Complainant, Ved Prakash (PW2) was working as Sr. Depot Agent in booth No. 1197, Sewa Nagar, New Delhi of Delhi Milk Scheme (DMS). The accused R.C. Kundu, at the relevant time, was posted as an Assistant Milk Distribution Officer (AMDO) in DMS and was looking after the ...
M/S Mahagun (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S Infiniti Retail Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2011
1. By this order I propose to decide the arbitration petition filed under Section 10 and 11 (5) & (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to make an order of appointment of an independent person as a sole arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes in view of high cost likely to be incurred by referring the claim/dispute to the Arbitral Tribunal or refer it to the Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre for appointment of a sole arbitrator. 2. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the high cost involved in the entire dispute resolving mechanism through the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal of three arbitrators, it would be in the interest of the parties that a sole arbitrator be appointed which was the intention of the parties but could not be agreed to in respect of the choice of the sole arbitrator. It was further submitted that as per the nature of the dispute which involves determination of damages, it is likely to take man...
Amarjit Kaur Vs. Gurpreet Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2011
1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is a stark reminder of the fact that endemic delays in litigations are sought to be taken advantage of by unscrupulous litigants. I begin with this sentence, inasmuch as the facts narrated here-in-after show as to how a plaintiff who has obtained a preliminary decree way-back on 21.1.1983, i.e. over 27 years back has been frustrated in getting benefits of his 50% share in the disputed property, and a 50% share which is not disputed by any one till today. 2. The property in question is property no.67/7, Behind Radio Colony, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. This property belonged to two brothers, Pritam Singh and Harbhajan Singh. Pritam Singh, one brother after the death of his other brother Harbhajan Singh filed a suit (hereinafter the subject suit) claiming a 50% share in the property and therefore asking for a decree for partition with respect to his 50% share in the property. Pritam Singh admitted that the other 50% share be...
Bharti Yadav and Another Vs. Union of India and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2011
1. The two petitioners-Bharti Yadav and Ritesh Kumar have impugned order dated 21st September, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (Tribunal, for short) dismissing T.A.No.8/2010. 2. By advertisement dated 23rd January, 2006 applications were invited for posts of Medical Social Service Officer, Grade II (MSSO Grade II, for short) from eligible candidates. As per the advertisement, there were nine posts in all, three unreserved, two reserved for the Scheduled Castes and four reserved for Other Backward Classes (OBC). The note No.(iii) to the said advertisement stipulated that number of vacancies for each post (several posts were advertised) may increase or decrease at the discretion of the appointing authority. 3. The two petitioners applied for the post of MSSO Grade II and after written test and the interview, a final result notification No.38/2007 dated 4th June, 2007 was issued. The said notification reads as under:- "Final Result Notification N...
People for Animals Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2011
1. By way of these Interlocutory Applications, the applicants, (i.e. fifth and sixth respondents, referred to hereafter as such) have sought clarification/modification of order dated 30.09.2010 (hereafter, "impugned judgment"), whereby, inter alia, entry No. 1(3) of Schedule II of the notification bearing No. GSR 991 (hereafter, the "exempting notification"), dated 13.07.1962 issued under sub-clause (vii) of clause (b) of sub-section (i) of Section 2 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereafter, "the Act") by the Central Government exempting the air guns, air rifles and air pistols from all the regulations and controls under the Act, was quashed. 2. The facts, in brief, which led to the filing of these applications are that the petitioner (hereafter, "PFA") preferred a writ petition challenging the above-said notification of the Central Government on the grounds, inter alia, that although the object of the Arms Act is to preserve public security, as also maintenance of public order, the basic requ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »