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.
Chand Ram and ors. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2011
1. The 70 petitioners claim to be the Bhumidhars of 70% of the land in village Mundela Khurd, Najafgarh, New Delhi. It is their case that a scheme for consolidation was mooted for the said village in the year 1972 but which inspite of passage of nearly 40 years has not been concluded as yet. They further claim that they are still in possession of their pre- consolidation holdings. 2. The petitioners themselves have in the writ petition disclosed an earlier round of litigation relating to the consolidation proceedings in the village. One Mr. Sarup Singh and others had filed W.P.(C) No.4144/1998. From the order dated 23rd July, 2007 in the said writ petition, it transpires that it was found by the Single Judge that the Consolidation Proceedings stood concluded. 3. Intra court appeal being LPA No.1185/2007 was preferred and in the order dated 27th January, 2009 disposing of the said appeal also, the Financial Commissioner is quoted as having found on going through the records in the year ...
ishwari Devi Vs. Bata Shoe Company Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2011
1. This petition under section 25- B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is against the order dated 16thJuly 2003 passed by the Additional Rent Controller whereby the eviction petition filed by the petitioner - landlady under Section 14-D of the said Act has been dismissed after trial. 2. The petitioner claimed to be the owner of property bearing no. 319/5/5A, (main road), Gandhi Nagar, Delhi having purchased the same vide sale deed dated 25thMarch 1969. One big room on the ground floor('the tenanted premises') portion of the said house was given on rent to respondent no.1 Bata Shoe Company Ltd., name of which Company later on after becoming a Private Limited Company came to be changed to Bata India Ltd., which had also been separately impleaded as respondent no. 2 in her eviction petition by the petitioner - landlady. The tenanted premises were let out in the year 1972 at a monthly rent of Rs 1275/- for commercial user. Fifteen years thereafter the petitioner filed an eviction cas...
Comdt. Atul Kumar Singh Vs. Uoi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2011
1. Petitioner Atul Kumar Singh was enrolled as an Assistant Commandant with Border Security Force (herein after referred to as the "BSF") and was promoted to the post of Commandant in the year 2002. In the year 2005 he was attached with the 18th Bn. BSF which was deployed at Paniasagar sector, which we are informed is in the State of Tripura. 2. In the year 2006 allegations were leveled against the petitioner that he had misappropriated the properties belonging to the government and regiment institution. In view of the seriousness of the allegations leveled against the petitioner, the Offence Report was taken cognizance of and Record of Evidence was directed to be prepared and considering the same a Security Force Court was convened and an indictment was laid. It was so done under cover of a charge sheet dated 07.09.2006 in which two charges were laid against the petitioner as under:- "First Charge DISHONESTLY MISAPPROPRIATING BSF Act PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE GOVT Sec 30(b) In that he...
Satender Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2011
1. This judgment will dispose of an appeal against the judgment and order of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 30.11.2010 in SC No.46/2009. The impugned judgment convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- in the fault of which he is to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment. 2. The prosecution allegations briefly were that the appellant was not in good terms with his wife Pinky (hereafter referred to as 'the deceased'). The latter had initiated criminal proceedings against him by lodging First Information Report (No.289/2007) alleging that he (the appellant) had committed offences punishable under Sections 307/498A and 448 IPC and apparently another First Information Report, alleging the commission of offence under Section 324 IPC had also been lodged against the appellant. The trial in those cases were pending before the Rohini Court. Shri Vipin Siroha, PW -14 (Pinki's counsel) had stated that she had also...
Sh. Jang Bahadur Singh Vs.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2011
1. For the reasons herein after appearing, even though none appears for the respondent employer but need is not felt to await or hear the respondent. 2. The petitioner workman impugns the order dated 1 st March, 2001 of the Industrial Adjudicator allowing the application of the respondent employer for setting aside of the ex parte award dated 30th August, 1999 subject to payment of costs by the respondent employer to the petitioner workman of `5,000/-. 3. Notice of the petition was issued and on the application of the petitioner workman further proceedings before the Industrial Adjudicator stayed and remain stayed. 4. The application for setting aside of the ex parte award was made within 13 days of the ex parte award. Upon the application being opposed by the petitioner workman issues were framed thereon, evidence led and thereafter the application allowed. 5. It has been put to the counsel for the petitioner that even if the writ petition of the petitioner workman is to be allowed an...
State of Nct of Delhi Vs. Mohd. Rafiq and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2011
1. The State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 23.05.2008 in SC No.57/2004 whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charge for having committed offences punishable 498A/34, 406/34 and 506/34 IPC. One of the respondent, i.e., accused Mohd. Rafiq was acquitted additionally of the charges for having committed offences under Sections 506/34, 376 (1) and 384/34 IPC. 2. The prosecution alleged that Suriya, the complainant (hereafter referred to as PW-1) married Rafiq on 25.11.1995 and used to reside with him in the matrimonial home. She alleged about maltreatment by Rafiq who insisted that she should get ` 50,000/- from her father since he wanted to purchase a thread making machine. PW-1 alleged that her father had spent ` 4,50,000/- towards jewellery and dowry in the marriage and, therefore, was unable to pay more, upon which, Rafiq got enraged and took away all the jewellery. When she tried to object, he pushed her down...
Paratrooper Rajeev Kumar Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2011
1. This petition u/s 226 of the Constitution of India was brought for quashing the proceedings of the Summary Court Martial (SCM) whereby the appellant was held guilty for the offence u/s 52 (a) of the Army Act for committing theft of 3 rifles (property belonging to Govt.) and sentenced to 6 months RI and also dismissal from service. It is said that the entire case was fabricated against the appellant. He had nothing to do with the alleged theft. Whatever the evidence was collected in the form of summary of evidence, that was taken at his back. No opportunity was given to him for cross examination of those witnesses. In so much the plea of guilt was so recorded, was virtually a coined statement to harm the appellant. He was asked to sign some of the blank papers and if those blank papers have been converted into a plea of the guilt and other forms, that would not relate to the trial in which he was convicted. Further it is submitted that while convicting the appellant on the so called ...
Bamara Engineering Works Vs. Satvinder Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2011
1. The counsel for the petitioner employer states that the petitioner is unable to file the fresh address of the respondent workman and seeks adjournment to move an application for substituted service. 2. Exactly the same request was made on 23rd November, 2010 when the petition was listed last. It appears that the petitioner employer after obtaining the ex parte ad interim order of stay of proceedings before the Industrial Adjudicator does not want to have the present matter proceeded with. 3. The writ petition impugns the award dated 11 th February, 2009 of the Industrial Adjudicator dismissing the application of the petitioner for examining further witness to prove that the respondent workman during the pendency of dispute before the Industrial Adjudicator is employed elsewhere. The Industrial Adjudicator dismissed the said application for the reason that the petitioner employer had in the past also been permitted to examine the witness in this regard and who had deposed against the...
Smt. Neerja JaIn Vs. Bengali Senior Secondary School and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2011
1. The respondent No.1 is a recognized School aided by the respondent No.2 Directorate of Education (DOE), Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. The respondent No.2 DOE vide its letter dated 21 st June, 2007 to the Manager of the respondent No.1 School conveyed the approval regarding creation / abolition of posts in the respondent No.1 School for the year 2006-07. One of the posts so approved was of a Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) in the subject of Computer Science. 2. The respondent No.1 School vide advertisement published in the newspapers in April, 2009, invited applications for appointment to the post of PGT (Computer Science). The procedure for recruitment in private schools whether aided or not, as the respondent No.1 School is, is provided in Chapter-VIII of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. The respondent No.1 School vide letter dated 24th July, 2009 to the respondent No.2 DOE requested for nomination of a Subject Expert for inclusion in the Selection Committee...
Mohan MeakIn Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2011
1. This is an appeal under Section 260A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") dated 3rd January, 2005 for the assessment years 1986-87. The appellant/assessee is engaged in the manufacturing of liquor, beer, juices, canned products and glass bottles etc. During the relevant assessment year 1986-87, the assessee filed revised return wherein beside other things it had claimed deduction of Rs.4,48,462/- as un- recovered bad debts. This amount comprised of various small amounts and also a sum of Rs.4,22,114/- shown against Kanpur Boot House. Regarding small amounts, it is seen that they represented mostly advances given to various parties and the assessee tried to recover but could not do so. The Assessing Officer allowed deductions of those small amounts, but declined that of Rs.4,22,114/- in respect of M/s.Kanpur Boot House of Shri Bhagwan Dass. He was not satisfied with the explanation given...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »