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.
Radha Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2011
1. By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has approached this Court to seek directions to direct the police to register an FIR and investigate the case expeditiously. 2. The present petition was filed by the petitioner on 3.11.2008 and the same was taken up by this Court on 5.11.2008 in the presence of the State Prosecutor. The case in hand depicts the sordid, despotic and nepotic functioning of the Delhi Police who in a most brazen, blatant and contemptuous manner have flouted and defied not only the mandate of the law as envisaged under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., but also various directions given by the Honble Apex Court and the High Court pronouncing that once any information disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence is brought before the police officer of a police station, then the concerned police officer is bound to register an FIR. 3. Before I proceed to discuss the legal position and the approach of the concerned po...
Shri Jagmohan Singh Negi Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2011
1. Having been appointed as an Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) with Central Industrial Security Force on 22.8.1972, petitioner earned promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector on 12.4.1978 and further to the post of Inspector on 24.3.1986. He earned promotion to the post of Asstt.Commandant on 2.7.1992 and further to the post of Deputy Commandant on 20.7.2000 and went further up the ladder when he earned promotion to the post of Commandant on 2.1.2006. 2. Aged 571/2 years and left with less than 21/2 years' service, at a Screening Committee which met on 25.5.2009, with reference to the ACRs of the petitioner prepared up to 31.3.2008 and warnings or displeasures awarded up to 31.3.2009, the Screening Committee decided to put the name of the petitioner in a list of such officers whose further retention in service required to be considered in public interest or otherwise under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules and considering the matter further recommended that being unfit for contin...
Bikram Singh Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2011
1. On 1.11.2010 Punjab & Sind Bank invited applications from eligible candidates for selection and appointment as Specialist Officer JMGScale 1, expressly stating that the post was in the scale of pay `14500`25700. Seeking permission to compete at the competitive examination to be conducted by Punjab & Sind Bank, Bikram Singh the writ petitioner of WP(C) No.3024/2011 applied through the Unit Commandant for his application to be sent to the bank and the Unit Commandant forwarded the same to the bank. It be noted that Bikram Singh had joined service as an Airman on 9.5.2003 and by 9.5.2010 had rendered 7 years service under the Air Force. 2. In September 2010, Bank of Maharashtra invited applications from eligible candidates for selection and appointment as a Probationary Officer and since neither Satish Kumar Jha the writ petitioner of WP(C) No.3092/2011 nor Ajay Kumar Ahirwar the writ petitioner of WP(C) No.3025/2011 have disclosed what was the scale of pay notified by the bank...
Rajnish Kumar and ors. Vs. Mohan Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2011
1. This revision petition under section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 has been filed by the petitioners- tenants against the order dated 11.10.2010 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller whereby their application under Section 25-B(4) filed for leave to contest the eviction case filed against them by the respondent-landlord on the ground of his bona fide requirement of a shop in property no.1712-B/5, Govind Puri Extension, Kalkaji, New Delhi(hereinafter to be referred to as 'the tenanted shop') under their tenancy as the legal heirs of the original tenant late Shri Manohar Lal Bhandari was dismissed and they have been asked to vacate the same within six months. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein had filed an eviction petition against the petitioners herein on the ground that he required the tenanted shop bona fide for introducing his unemployed elder son in the business of tenting and catering which he(landlord) was carrying on already ...
Akbari Begum and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and / or order dated 06.09.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 59/96 arising out of FIR No.162/94, registered under section 302/34 IPC, P.S. Seelampur whereby the appellants have been held to be guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. The appellants are also aggrieved by the order on point of sentence dated 9.9.1997 whereby each of the appellants have been sentenced to life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of `. 5000/- each and, in default whereof, to undergo RI for a further period of three months each in respect of the said offence punishable under section 302/34 IPC. 2. The Charge against the appellants, namely, Akbari Begum, Salma Begum, Shahida Begum and Rabia @ Indra was that on 31.3.94 at 6.30 pm at H. No. 905, G. No. 30/6 Indira Chowk, Jafrabad within the jurisdiction of P.S. Seelampur, in furtherance of their common intention, they committed the murder ...
Mohd.Tarikh @ Ruffi Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2011
1. Appellant Mohd.Tarikh has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) IPC vide impugned judgment and order dated 3.3.1999 and vide order dated 4.3.1999 has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Appellant Mohd.Tulay has been likewise convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) IPC vide judgment and order dated 8.8.2006 and vide order on sentence dated 11.8.2006 has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The two have been convicted on being held guilty of raping a minor girl named 'N' and the reason why we have two impugned judgments is that appellant Mohd.Tulay had absconded and was declared a proclaimed offender. Co- accused Mohd.Tarikh suffered a trial and was convicted. Thereafter Mohd.Tulay was apprehended and sent to face a trial. 3. Since first trial was held in Session Case No.135/1997 in which Mohd.Tarikh has been convicted, we shall be referring to the exhibits of the documents at said trial and would be referrin...
indu Singh Vs. Uoi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2011
1. In the year 2009 the petitioner was working as a Head Constable (Radio Operator) with Central Reserve Police Force (herein after referred to as the "CRPF") and was attached with 1st Signal Battalion. 2. On 30.10.2009 the petitioner was informed that she has been promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector and that she is required to submit her health card with the department so that further action could be taken and formal orders released pertaining to her promotion. 3. Petitioner claims that happy as she was on learning that she had earned a promotion, which would not only enhance her status but would give her additional finances to bring up her children as unfortunately she had been widowed at a young age, at about 3:00 PM on 30.10.2009, she was proceeding towards the administrative block to obtain her health card and as she was climbing the stairs in the administrative block to proceed to the room on the first floor wherefrom she had to obtain her health card, SI M.J.Prakash ...
Surender Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2011
1. The instant appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 18.3.2010 and since the appeal was decided, although on merits, after going through the evidence and with the assistance of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, but without any representation from the side of the appellant, vide order dated 7.1.2011 passed by the Supreme Court on the sole ground that the appellant was not heard the decision dated 18.3.20110 was set-aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication. The present decision decides the appeal after hearing learned counsel for the appellant and the State. 2. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 28.1.2008, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC inasmuch as the learned Trial Judge has held that the evidence establishes that on 30.6.2002, using the SAF carbine issued to the appellant on duty at the gate of PS Mayur Vihar, the appellant fired indiscriminately at Satish with the intention of causing the death...
Lt Col R.K Rudra Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2011
1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and is to be treated as an appeal under Sections 14 and 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007. The appellant is aggrieved against the General Court Martial (GCM) conducted between 6.2.1996 and 25.3.1996, whereby the appellant was sentenced to be dismissed from service. He, therefore, seeks quashing of the GCM proceedings. The appellant is also aggrieved by the fact that he has been denied his pensionary and other retiral benefits and seeks to quash the show cause notice dated 11.4.1997 and the subsequent action of the respondents, by which they forfeited his entire pensionary benefits because of his dismissal by the GCM. 2. The appellant joined the Indian Air Force as an Airman in 1962 and served with the Air Force till 31.10.1969 when he was selected for short service commission in the Army and underwent training at the Officers Training School, Chennai from 1.11.1969 to 5.9.1970. On 6.9.1970, the appell...
Arti Jethani Vs. Daehsan Trading (India) Pvt Ltd and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. This is a petition under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for referring the disputes raised by the plaintiff for arbitration, in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties. 2. A perusal of the record would show that on suit summons being served on them, the defendants appeared through counsel on 04th January, 2011 and it was directed that the written statement be filed within the prescribed period. The matter was adjourned to 02nd May, 2011. The written statement was filed on 25th January, 2011. Replication to the written statement was filed on 14th February, 2011. In replication, the plaintiff relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. Jayesh H. Pandya and Anr. AIR 2003 SC 2252, stated that the defendants having already filed Written Statement and no application under Section 8 of the Act having been filed, the matter was not required to be referred to the arbitral tribun...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »