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.
Surinder Kumar Sehgal and ors Vs. M/S. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.03.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby and whereunder the Claim Petition filed by the appellants claiming compensation for the death of the deceased Rajiv Sehgal in a motor vehicular accident was dismissed. 2. At the time of hearing, the appellants were unrepresented as also the respondents. This court, therefore, had no option except to peruse the records of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the appeal paper book. On scrutinizing the aforesaid, the facts of the case emerge as follows: In the night intervening 12/13.06.1993 at about 1:15 a.m., the deceased Rajiv Sehgal was going from the J.M.C. Factory, Karawal Raod to his house at Shahdara. When he had reached near Gatta Factory Raghunath Temple, Karawal Nagar Raod, his motorcycle bearing No. DBX-7850 dashed against a stationary truck bearing No. DLL-2852. The said truck was standing on the road without any parking lights indicators/reflectors on its ...
Dr. S.K. JaIn Vs. Iit, Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition impleading Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Delhi and Universities Grant Commission (UGC) as respondents and claiming the following reliefs: "(1) To admit and extend normal medical facilities to the petitioner. (2) To release the salary and grant of the petitioner forthwith and not to delay and withhold payment of salaries and provide timely necessary infrastructure support and other facilities to the petitioner. (3) Not to ban the entry of the petitioner to his office, work place (laboratory) and residence as implied by the notice Annex. D or stipulate any further similar action till the petitioner achieves superannuation." 2. The counsels have been heard. 3. The counsel for the respondent no.2 UGC has invited attention to the order dated 23rd January, 2002 disposing of C.W. No.5090/2000 titled UGC Research Scientists Association v. UGC. It is stated that the petitioner herein was also a member of the UGC Research Scientists Associat...
Parminder Singh Sethi and anr Vs. State and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. This is an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of the victim (namely, the appellant No.2 Smt Jagwant Kaur), who is the wife of the deceased Jagjit Singh. The appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and / or order dated 16.03.2010 in Sessions Case No.7/2008 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, whereby the accused Mohd Shafiq (the respondent No.2 herein) was acquitted of the charges under Sections 302/201 IPC for having committed the murder of Jagjit Singh and for having disposed of his body in a gunny bag so as to cause the disappearance of evidence. 2. The case for the prosecution was that Jagjit Singh had given a sum of ` 6 lakhs by way of loan to the accused Mohd Shafiq. Request for return of the money was being made from time to time and that on 12.04.2008, Jagjit Singh had sent his wife (Smt. Jagwant Kaur PW-9) and his son (Prabhjot Singh PW- 10) to Mohd Shafiq to demand return...
Om Prakash and ors Vs. Jai Singh and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-2011
1. This is a suit for partition of property comprised in Khasra No. 798/505 min. situated in Abadi Deh, Municipal No. 153-A, Shahpur Jat, New Delhi. Late Shri Risal Singh, late Shri Chhatar Singh and late Shri Nyaddar Singh were brothers, being sons of late Shri Surjan Singh. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit land was jointly purchased by late Shri Risal Singh, late Shri Chhatar Singh and late Shri Nyaddar Singh. Late Shri Risal Singh was survived by three sons Jai Singh (defendant No. 1), Sher Singh (defendant No. 2) and Inder Singh. Shri Inder Singh has died and is survived by his widow Raj Bala, who is defendant No. 3 in the suit and two sons Manish and Vikas who are defendant No. 4 and 5 respectively in the suit. Late Shri Nyaddar Singh was survived by five sons, namely, plaintiff No. 1 Om Prakash, plaintiff No. 2 Kuldeep Singh, plaintiff No. 3 Braham Prakash, plaintiff No. 4 Surinder Singh and late Shri Ved Prakash and two daughters, plaintiff No. 1 Satyawati and plaintif...
Ravindra Dewaji Durge Vs. Ongc Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-2011
1. The writ petition has been filed impugning the appointment of respondent No.5 Mr. Ravinder Pal Gupta as the Chief Manager (Security) in the respondent No.1 ONGC. 2. Both, the petitioner and the respondent No.5 were at the relevant time employed with the respondent No.1 ONGC as Manager (Security), an E-4 post. The petitioner claims and it is not disputed in the counter affidavits of the respondent No.1 ONGC and the respondent No.5 that as per the seniority list, the petitioner was senior to the respondent No.5. 3. The respondent No.1 ONGC on 22nd March, 2008 published an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Security Officer (an E-1 post) and DGM (Security) (an E-6 post). The respondent No.5 applied for the post of DGM (Security). The petitioner claims that he was not eligible to apply for the post of DGM (Security). 4. The respondent No.1 ONGC though did not find the respondent No.5 eligible / suitable for the said post of DGM (Security) but posted him as Chief Manager...
M/S. Herbicides (India) Ltd. Vs. M/S. Shashank Pesticides P.Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-2011
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs 24,90,665/-. Defendant No. 1 is a company alleged to be owned and controlled by defendant No. 4 and his family members. Defendant No. 3 is the wife of defendant No. 4 and is running business in the name and style of defendant No. 2 from the same premises, where defendant No. 1 is functioning. Defendant No. 1-company entered into an agreement to purchase one lakh litres of weedicide, namely 2, 4-D Ethyl Ester 38% EC in 200 litres packaging, at the price of Rs 96.80 per litre plus local tax in staggered lots commencing from October, 1995 and ending in December, 1995. In the event of non-supply or non-lifting of goods, the party, in default, was to pay pre-determined compensation at the rate of Rs 20/- per litre. The plaintiff claims to have supplied 7000 litres of the aforesaid goods to defendant No. 1 in October, 1995. On the request of the defendant, invoice in respect of these 7000 litre of goods were raised on one M/s Paramount Pesticides Pvt. Ltd...
Municipal Corporationof Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-2011
1. These petitions are taken up together for consideration being against identical awards of the same Industrial Adjudicator on identical reference. Notice of each of the petition was issued and the respondents served. The presence of the counsel for the respondents is recorded in a number of petitions and counter affidavits have also been filed by the respondents in a number of petitions. All the writ petitions were listed before this Bench on 27th April, 2011 when none appeared for the respondent workmen. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner MCD was noted and the matter adjourned to 4th May, 2011 with direction for listing with notation in the cause list of 'Notice of Default' to counsel for the respondent workmen. Inspite of matters being so listed on 4th May, 2011, none appeared for the respondent workmen on that day also and the hearing was adjourned for today. Today also none has appeared for the respondent workmen. The respondent workmen are proceeded against ex part...
Mount Carmel School Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labout Court No.X, Kark ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-2011
1. The writ petition was filed impugning the award dated 21 st January, 1999 of the Industrial Adjudicator holding that 19 out of the 22 workmen who had raised the dispute of which reference was made, were illegally terminated by the petitioner School and that the said 19 workmen had not abandoned their services as contended by the petitioner School and directing the petitioner School to reinstate the said 19 workmen together with 50% of the back wages. Though the petitioner School had contested the dispute before the Industrial Adjudicator, cross examined the witnesses of the workmen and also examined two of its own witnesses but thereafter when the matter was listed for remaining evidence of the petitioner School, stopped appearing before the Industrial Adjudicator and the award was accordingly made ex parte. The petitioner School thereafter applied to the Industrial Adjudicator for setting aside of the ex parte award. The said application was dismissed by the order dated 7 th Septem...
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs. Rajni Devi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 18.10.2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, awarding a sum of ` 7,68,260/- to the respondents No.1 to 4 on a Claim Petition filed by them for compensation under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. The brief facts relevant for the decision of the present appeal are that on 18.07.2007, one Shri Ram Niwas (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was sitting behind a stationary dumper, while the driver of the dumper was changing the tyre of the same. The alleged offending vehicle, being tempo bearing No. HR-69A-0414, driven rashly and negligently and at a fast speed, came from Haryana side towards GTK Road, Alipur and crushed the deceased. 3. A First Information Report under Section 279/304-A IPC was registered against the driver of the offending tempo being FIR No.227/2007 Police Station, Alipur. A Claim Petition was filed by the respondents No.1 to 5, being the widow of the ...
Nina Rajan Pillai and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-2011
1. Mr. Rajan Janardhan Mohandas Pillai (hereafter „Rajan Pillai), a businessman of Singapore, died in the Deen Dayal Upadhayay Hospital („DDU Hospital), New Delhi on 7th July 1995 while he was in judicial custody, lodged in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi. In order to ascertain the relevant facts and circumstances leading to the death of Rajan Pillai, the Lieutenant Governor („LG) of the National Capital Territory of Delhi appointed a Commission of Inquiry consisting of Justice Leila Seth, a former Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court by a notification dated 27th July 1995 under Section 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952. The report of the Leila Seth Commission of Inquiry („LSCI) dated 25th February 1997, inter alia, dealt with the question whether in the death of Rajan Pillai, there was negligence on the part of any authority. The findings in this regard by the LSCI have been made the subject matter of this writ petition filed on 20th April 199...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »