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.
Krishan Gopal Vs. Sankar @ Sankar Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2011
1. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage. 2. The short question which arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the impugned award is liable to be set aside on the prayer of the registered owner of the offending vehicle on the ground that the registered owner of the vehicle had sold the vehicle to the respondent No.6 (arrayed as the respondent No.1 in the claim petition) prior to the date of the accident. 3. The relevant facts are that on 28.07.2007, one Smt. Munni Devi was hit by a speeding scooter bearing No.DL-7SAA-2598, which was being driven by one Mohd. Abid in a zigzag and rash and negligent manner. Smt. Munni Devi (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") sustained injuries which proved to be fatal. An FIR bearing No.188/07 was registered at Police Station Civil Lines in respect of the said accident. The husband of the deceased and her children filed a claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of the M...
Nb Sub Dayanand Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2011
1. The petition (W.P (C) No. 5349 of 1997) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was brought before the Delhi High Court. The same was transferred to this Tribunal on 11 Sep 2009 and was treated as an appeal under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007. The appellant has prayed for setting aside of the Order of conviction, sentence of one year RI and dismissal from service by Summary General Court Martial (SGCM) held between 4 - 17 Oct 1995. The appellant has also prayed for grant of pensionary benefits. 2. The appellant was tried by SGCM on 4 Oct 1995 convened by the order of Maj General Mohan Anand Gurbaxani GOC 28 Inf Div and charged under Army Act Section 63 for An omission prejudicial to good order and military discipline in that he, At field, on 28 October 1994, while on active service, during OP SAHAS, being the Junior Commissioned Officer-in-Charge of Reserve Party, failed to maintain contact with own troops engaged in action against the militants at Point 19...
Ex Lt (Ag. Maj) Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2011
1. The challenge in this appeal is against the General Court Martial proceedings dated 12.11.2001, whereby the appellant was found guilty of having committed the offences under Army Act Sections 38(i) and 39(b) and sentenced (i) to be cashiered; and (ii) to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The findings and sentence were confirmed by the authority on 19.7.2006 and were promulgated on 17.3.2010. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in a nutshell are: The appellant was commissioned in the Army on 26.8.1982. In August 1993, he was posted at Hissar as Officer in Charge of Light Repair Workshop. In the year 1994, there arose a marital discord between the appellant and his wife, resultantly his wife filed a suit for divorce. On 17.5.1995, the appellant applied for his release from service as there was nobody to look after his aged father and his pre-deceased sisters daughter. His request was rejected allegedly without assigning any reason. On 11.5.1996, while working at 505 Army ...
M/S. Snab Publishers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S Variety Book Depot
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2011
1. In this suit for recovery of Rs.1,10,16,922.87p. with interest, defendant has come up with this application to invoke the Arbitration Clause as contained in the Agreement of 9th September, 2008 seeking reference of the dispute raised herein as well as the proposed counter claims of the defendant, to an Arbitrator who is to be appointed jointly by the parties to this suit. 2. Plaintiff-company is engaged in the business of printing and publishing of books and the defendant firm is in the business of distribution and bankings and the business dealings between the parties related back to the year 1994 when the plaintiff/publisher had approached the defendant for distribution of the books "Vegetarian Wonders" etc. Initially there was no formal written agreement between the parties and in the usual and ordinary course of business on account payments were being made by the defendant to the plaintiff who had been maintaining a running account which was continuous, mutual, open and current....
M/S. Space 2000 Spa Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2011
1. In the year 1995 defendant had supplied three consignments of readymade leather garments to the plaintiff against full payment and details of the aforesaid consignment finds mention in the plaint. Plaintiff is an Italian company who had received the aforesaid consignment against Invoices of 5th July, 1995, (Ex. P-2), 30th June, 1995, (Ex. P-3) 23rd August, 1995, (Ex. P-4) and the said three consignments received from the defendant were inspected in the warehouse of the plaintiff, where it was discovered that the aforesaid consignments were defective and this was conveyed by the plaintiff to the defendant vide Communication of 21st September, 1995, (Ex.P-5). Since the plaintiff claims to have received no response from the defendant to the aforesaid Communication and the subsequent reminders, therefore the plaintiff had approached the Italian Court/Tribunal of Genova for appointment of a Surveyor to make a detailed Inspection/verification of the aforesaid consignment of garments and t...
Shri G.B. Sharma Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2011
1 This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2008 which had endorsed the finding of the trial Judge dated 28.10.1995 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff G.B. Sharma seeking declaration to the effect that he was entitled to the benefits for the post of a warrant officer which had accrued to him on the date of his promotion i.e. w.e.f. 16.06.1980 be granted to him had been dismissed. 2 The case of the plaintiff is that he was working as a defence personnel in the Air Force in the Government of India; defendant No. 2 had without any reason, illegally withheld his promotion; he was a junior warrant officer; he had to be promoted w.e.f. 16.06.1980 as a warrant officer; his ACR for the year 1978-79 had to be considered but his ACR for the year 1978 had been sent back for reconsideration and was never before the competent authority at the time when he was considered for promotion; his promotion has been illegally and unjustifiably rejected. 3 In the written statement, th...
D.T.C. Vs. Jai Bhagwan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2011
1. The interim order dated 9th February, 2005 staying the operation and implementation of the award dated 7 th February, 2003 of the Industrial Adjudicator impugned in this writ petition is made absolute till the decision of the writ petition. CM No.15814/2006 (of the respondent workman u/S 17B of the I.D. Act) 2. The counsel for the respondent workman points out that in the order dated 3rd March, 2011, the application has been erroneously shown as of the year 2010 while it is of the year 2006. 3. The writ petition impugns the award of the Industrial Adjudicator directing the petitioner DTC to reinstate the respondent workman with full back wages. As aforesaid, there is an interim order of stay of operation and implementation of the award. The respondent workman in his application supported by affidavit has stated that he is unemployed. The necessary ingredients of Section 17B are satisfied. The petitioner DTC in its reply has been unable to state that the respondent workman is employe...
Shamsher Singh and ors. Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2011
1. The petitioners have filed the above noted writ petition seeking writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 30th November, 2004 issued by the Executive Director, Airports Authority of India terminating the ad hoc appointment of the petitioners and for further directions to the respondents to continue the petitioner on their respective posts and also for further directions to the respondents to accord similar treatment to the petitioners as has been accorded by the respondents to those, who have been appointed on regular basis. 2. According to the petitioners, on the approval of the competent authority, they were appointed on ad hoc basis to various posts including the post of Senior Superintendent and Assistants, initially for a period of six months. It was also submitted that their ad hoc appointments were extended time and again, and in order to substantiate their contentions they have relied on order dated 15th January, 2001, wherein the extension of the ad hoc appointment o...
Smt. Guddo @ Sonia and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2011
1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 24.07.2009 and order on sentence dated 29.07.2009 delivered by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 172/2008 whereby both the appellants were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each under Section 302 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months each for committing the murder of Manoj Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) husband of Smt. Guddo @ Sonia who is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 621/2009. The appellants were further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each under Section 120 B IPC and in case of default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months each. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution was that a DD No. 6 A was received at PS Uttam Nagar th...
Shri Nanak Chand and ors. Vs. Shri Jai Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2011
1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 08.4.2008 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 15.5.2003 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Nanak Chand seeking possession of the suit property measuring 9 bighas 12 biswas bearing Killa No.46/3 (4-16),8(4-16) in village Jatkhore, Delhi had been dismissed. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that his predecessor had agreed to sell the aforenoted land to the defendant vide agreement to sell executed in 1966. He had requested the defendant to get the sale deed executed and registered by making the payment of the balance agreement amount but the defendant failed to do so. Licence granted by the plaintiff to the defendant for cultivating has since been expired. Legal notice dated 19.1.1990 was sent to the defendant calling upon him to vacate the suit land but he failed to do so. Present suit was accordingly filed. 3. In defence it is stated the defendants had become the owner by virtue of the agreement to sell wh...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »