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.
Uoi Vs. Dharam Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2011
This is an application by the petitioner/applicant for setting aside the order dated 2nd August, 2010, dismissing the writ petition in default of appearance of petitioner and his counsel and on the ground that along with the application, being CM No. 2910/2010 for substituting the legal heirs of deceased respondent No. 34, no application seeking condonation of delay in filing the application for substitution was filed despite the opportunity given and therefore, the petition has abated. The applicant has contended that on 2nd August, 2010, the counsel for the petitioner could not appear when the matter was taken up by the Court as he was busy in another matter before the Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Valmiki Mehta. The application is supported by the affidavit of Dr. Amarpreet Duggal, Director, Foreign Post, Department of Post. The applicant has also contended that the application seeking condonation of delay in filing CM No. 2910/2010 seeking ...
Dr.H.L.Raskaran Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. From the inchoate pleadings in the writ petitions as also the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the official respondents,nothing of substance can be gathered. But with reference to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.5 to 10,12,15,16,18,20,22,23 & 24 in W.P.(C) No.800/2008, we have been able to see the distinction between the head from the tail and thus identify the issue which arises for consideration in the above captioned writ petitions. 3. Facts are not in dispute. 4. There are 6 Central Para-military Forces in India, being: (i) Border Security Force (BSF), (ii) Central Reserved Police Force (CRPF), (iii) Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), (iv) Shashtra Seema Bal (SSB), (v) Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), and (vi) Assam Rifles (AR). 5. Medical cadre in all 6 Central Para-military Forces was identical, notwithstanding separate Recruitment Rules being notified by each Central Para-military Force; al...
Mohinder Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2011
1. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 6.2.1999, appellant Mohinder Kumar, husband of deceased Seema has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Section 302 IPC. As per the order on sentence dated 10.2.1999, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine in sum of `1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and to undergo RI for 1 year and pay fine in sum of `500/- for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. 2. The conviction has been sustained on the evidence of the last dying declaration made by Seema which has been accepted by the learned Trial Judge as trustworthy and to which the learned Trial Judge has found corroboration with respect to the scene at the site/place of the incident. 3. The journey of the instant case commenced, when on 29.2.1992 at 22:07 PM, Lady Ct.Anju PW-1, on duty at the Police Control Room, received telephonic information from one Satish Kumar informing that a person has set his wife ...
Sgt Praveen Kr. Thul Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2011
1. The challenge in this writ petition W.P No. 10124 of 2009 filed before the Delhi High Court is against the conviction and sentence by the District Court Martial (DCM), whereby the petitioner was found guilty of having committed the offence under Sections 40(c) and 65 of the Air Force Act and sentenced (a) to be reduced to the ranks; and (b) to be severely reprimanded. Thereupon, a statutory complaint was filed before the appropriate authority, which remitted the sentence of reduction in ranks to forfeiture of two years seniority in service. The writ petition was transferred to this Tribunal and is treated as an appeal under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the findings of the DCM are illegal, on the following reasons: a) the entire case was fabricated against the appellant and the findings were merely on conjectures and surmises; b) there was violation of Para 740(c), 741 and 754 of the Regulations for the Air Force; ...
Beant Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2011
1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed before the Delhi High Court, the petitioner challenged the General Court Martial proceedings, whereby he was held guilty of having committed the offence under Section 52(f) on nine counts for placing supply orders with intent to defraud, in contravention to the SOP issued by the CWE, Agra and sentenced to (i) undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and (ii) to be cashiered. On formation of this Tribunal, the said writ petition was transferred to this Bench and treated it as an appeal under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was falsely roped into the charges for supposedly having violated the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) dated 26.6.1996 putting ban by the Chief Engineer, Lucknow Zone. Admittedly, the ban was lifted from 7.4.1998. The allegation of having unauthorisedly placed supply orders in violati...
Ramesh Chander Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2011
1. The appellant has filed W.P (C) No. 1682 of 1992 before the Delhi High Court challenging the Summary Court Martial (SCM) proceedings of 20.3.1986, wherein he was held guilty for an offence under Army Act Section 40(a) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and dismissal from service. The writ petition was transferred to this Tribunal after its formation and is being disposed of by this judgment, treating it as an appeal under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007. 2. The appellant joined the Indian Army in 1978 and was posted to the ASC as an MT Driver. At the time of the incident, he was posted with 533 ASC Bn at Hissar. While posted with this unit, an SCM was held on 20.3.1986, which convicted the appellant for an offence of grappling with Nb Sub Raghunath of the same unit on 5.12.1985. 3. The first and foremost grievance of the appellant is that he was not provided any documents till such time that he specifically asked for them after he was sh...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›