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.
Shokeen and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2011
1. Briefly the prosecution case is that on the complaint of one Nadeem Ahmed FIR No. 365/1998 under Section 307/114/34 IPC was registered at P.S. Gokulpuri alleging that on 5th June, 1998 at about 7:45 P.M. in Gali No. 22, A-Block, Sri Ram Colony, Delhi, Appellants Tasleem, Yamin @ Shokeen, and co-accused Frahim and Salim(since P.O.) on the abetment of one Mohsin who also came at the spot, in furtherance of their common intention caused injuries on the person of PW2 Nadeem Ahmed by opening fire at him with country-made pistols with an intention to cause his death. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The Appellants Tasleem, Shokeen and one Frahim were charged for offences under Section 307/34 IPC whereas Mohsin was charged for offences punishable under Section 114 read with Section 307 IPC. After recording the prosecution witnesses, statements of the accuseds and the defence witnesses the learned trial court convicted the Appellants and Frahim for offences punishable under Se...
Swami Chakrapani Vs. Election Commission of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2011
1. The Petitioner claims to be the National President of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha („ABHM), an unrecognized registered political party. He challenges a communication dated 14th January 2011 by the Respondent Election Commission of India („ECI) which inter alia states that the ECI would not entertain "any communication received from any groups and will not recognize anyone as the authorized office-bearers of the party". 2. Based on a letter dated 6th September 2006 sent to the ECI by the Petitioner, followed by letters dated 6th July 2007 and 9th July 2007, the ECI by its communication dated 7th August 2007 addressed to the Petitioner informed that "the list of office-bearers submitted by the party by the letter dated 6th September 2006 has been taken on record". The said letter also referred to an earlier letter dated 18th May 2007 received from Dr. Indira Tiwari as regards the allotment of an election symbol and stated that since the party was a registered unrecogni...
Pradeep @ Sanjay and anr. Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.11.1997 and the order on sentence dated 28.11.1997, whereby the Appellants Pradeep and Dinesh were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code („IPC). They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of `500/- each under Section 302/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the Appellants were sentenced to undergo further rigorous Imprisonment for one month. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of `500/- each under Section 201/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the Appellants were sentenced to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for one month. 2. The facts of the case can be extracted from para 1 to 4 of the impugned judgment. These are :- "1. Sudhir Goel (now deceased) was residing alongwith his father Bhagwan Dass at H.No.BE-153, Hari Nagar on or prior to 4.3.94. He was studying in 9 t...
C.L.Gupta Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2011
1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 30.8.2007 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 02.9.2002 by virtue of which the suit filed by the plaintiff C.L.Gupta seeking permanent injunction against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property i.e. property bearing No.29/1, situated in village Sheikh Sarai, P.O.Malviya Nagar, Savitri Nagar, New Delhi had been dismissed. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner of the aforenoted suit property. He had purchased it from Laxman Singh vide a sale deed duly registered in his favour dated 19.12.1988; he is in continuous possession for the last 30 years; defendant was threatening him from dispossession. Suit was accordingly filed. 3. In the written statement it has been stated the plaintiff has no right to land in question; Khasra No.548/135 (min) measuring 3 bighas has since been acquired and the suit property is located therein. Pla...
K.K. JaIn Vs. Uoi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2011
1. On the condition that the counsel for the petitioner to argue on the merits of the writ petition today itself and to which the counsel for the petitioner applicant has agreed, for the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed. The delay in applying for restoration is condoned and the writ petition is restored to its original position. W.P.(C) No.2199/1996. 2. The counsel for the petitioner has been heard. In the facts as mentioned herein below, need is not felt to hear the counsel for the respondents and the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and to which there is no rejoinder has been filed, perused. 3. The petitioner joined the Indian Navy in July, 1959 and retired from the post of Commander in the Indian Navy in the year 1983. The petitioner as per the terms of his employment was entitled to pension. 4. The petitioner in response to an advertisement published by the respondent no.2 M/s. Hindustan Shipyard Limited in the year 1987 applied and was selected fo...
Shri Sanjeev Wadhwa and anr. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2011
1. The petitioners, Sanjeev Wadhwa and Rajeev Wadhwa had preferred revision petitions under Section 129 DD of the Customs Act, 1962 (Act, for short) against the orders imposing personal penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs and confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). 2. The impugned order dated 17th December, 2009 passed by the Joint Secretary, Government of India, records the factual matrix and how the custom officers had intercepted one passenger Krishan Kumar Gupta with foreign currency equivalent to Rs.52,27,887/- and Indian currency of Rs.2,00,000/-. It is stated that Krishan Kumar Gupta in his voluntary statement recorded under Section 108 of the Act had implicated Rajeev Wadhwa, who was a Director of Mahavir Forex Private Limited. The said Rajeev Wadhwa was detained under the provisions of COFEPOSA Act, 1974. Sanjeev Wadhwa was also one of the Directors of the said company. The impugned orde...
Mcd Vs. Charan Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2011
1. Allotment of plots in Ghoga Dairy Colony, Narela has been subject matter of various writ petitions. The applications for allotment were invited in the year 2004 and the rate mentioned was Rs.2,500/- per square meter. The allottees had deposited 50% of the price at the time of submission of the application for allotment and the balance 50% @ Rs.2,500/- per square meter was subsequently deposited. 2. The rates were enhanced. The allottees were asked to deposit Rs.36,560/- per square meter but later on the appellant-Municipal Corporation of Delhi vide resolution No. 78 dated 24th May, 2010 decided to charge Rs.7,000/- per square meter on "no profit no loss basis". The said demand was challenged in writ petitions but without success and rejected vide judgment dated 24th December, 2010 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12334/2009, Rishi Pal versus MCD and other cases. However, to avoid hardship to the allottees, they were given opportunity to pay the differential price within four weeks toge...
M/S Nepc India Ltd. Vs. Capt. Kersy Ratonsha Driver
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2011
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs 50 lakhs as damages alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff on account of illegally grounding of its aircraft, pursuant to an order passed by Bombay High Court. The plaintiff-company, which was earlier known as M/s NEPC Micon Limited,claims to be the owner of Beach Craft King Air C-90-A Aircraft having purchased it in the year 1995. Vide its interim order dated 25th August, 2008, passed in Notice of Motion No. 220 of 2007 in Writ Petition No. 2763 of 2003 filed by the defendant, seeking attachment, impounding and sale of the above-referred aircraft, an order came to be passed for attachment of the above-referred aircraft. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant had falsely alleged before Bombay High Court that the aforesaid aircraft belongs to Skyline NEPC Limited, whereas, in fact, it belonged to the plaintiff-company. The aircraft came to be attached at Delhi on 03rd October, 2008. The case of the plaintiff is that it suffered huge ...
M/S Mekastar Telematics Ltd. Vs. Aaifr and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2011
1. By this writ petition a challenge is laid to the order dated 09.03.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as „AAIFR) in Appeal No. 128/2006 and order dated 08.03.2006 passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as „BIFR) in case no. 379/2003. For the sake of convenience the aforementioned orders will be collectively referred to as the impugned orders. 2. In brief the petitioner before us is aggrieved by the order passed by the BIFR which has been sustained by the AAIFR whereby the reference filed by it has been held to be non-maintainable on the sole ground that on the date of institution of the reference it was not an industrial company within the meaning of Section 3(1)(e) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as „SICA). 2.1 The reasoning adopted by the BIFR in passing order dated 08.03.2006 is briefl...
Hemant Baburao Patil Vs. Uoi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2011
1. The petitioner No.1, President of National Anti Corruption Public Power, a registered association and an NGO and the association, the petitioner No.2 herein, have preferred this public interest writ petition with the following reliefs: "(a) to pass a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction or order directing the respondents to drop and/or remove Sh. Anna Hazare, as one of the members representing civil society in the drafting committee of Jan Lokpal Bill. (b) to pass a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondents to substitute Sh. Anna Hazare with some other suitable member, who may be either any judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India or ex-speaker of Lok Sabha or any other suitable and qualified person to represent the civil society in the drafting committee of Jan Lokpal Bill; and (c) to pass a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction thereby quashing the resolution and notific...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »