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.
M/S. Lords Chloro Alkali Limited Vs. M/S. Bharat Heavy Electricals Lim ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-2011
1. The present writ petition raises the following question of law: "Whether a Public Sector Enterprise/Undertaking (for short PSU) having dues outstanding in respect of a commercial transaction from a sick company within the meaning of The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the SICA) falls within the definition of "other authority" for purposes of Section 19(1) of the SICA and is entitled to the benefit of sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the SICA of circulation of the scheme and entitlement to obtain its consent?" 2. Respondent No.1 Company supplied one unit of 12KA, 360V DC 6 Pulse Tyristor Converter System to the petitioner Company against a purchase order dated 10.4.1996 for a plant at Alwar. Only some part payments were made when the net worth of the petitioner Company was wiped out and, thus, proceedings were initiated by the petitioner Company under the SICA for being declared as a sick company. These proceedings resulted in exa...
Society for Employment and Career Counselling (Regd.) Vs. the Chairman ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-2011
1. A number of educational institutions filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court aggrieved by the non- allotment of land to them at pre-determined rates under the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules). Such petitioners included higher and technical institutes, schools and even hospitals. The common case made out was that their applications for allotment of Nazul land at pre-determined rates was at advanced stage after due clearance but on the eve of proposed allotment the policy was changed and the land was now sought to be disposed of only by way of public auction, which would imply much higher rates rather than the pre- determined rates. 2. We may note at this stage that the said Rules have seen various amendments, i.e. the position prevalent prior to 2002, amendments made effective from 5.7.2002, amendments made effective from 9.12.2004 and amendments made ef...
Shankar Dass and anr. Vs. Pratap International P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-2011
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. CM No.7756-57/2011 (for restoration of the writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution on 25th March, 2010 and for condonation of 414 days delay in applying therefor). 2. The respondent employer had not appeared inspite of the notice of the writ petition and the writ petition was being listed for hearing the counsel for the petitioner only when it was dismissed for non-prosecution on 25th March, 2010. In the circumstances, need is not felt to issue notice of these applications to the respondent employer. 3. However, it is found that even though the matter was listed before this Court on 2nd September, 2008 after the respondent had failed to appear but the petitioners did not argue the writ petition and sought as many as seven adjournments for arguing on the writ petition and ultimately the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution as aforesaid. Though the said conduct of the petitioners itself disentitles the petitioners from any indulgence...
Mother Teresa Institute of Management (Regd.) Vs. Delhi Development Au ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-2011
1. A number of educational institutions filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court aggrieved by the non- allotment of land to them at pre-determined rates under the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Rules'). Such petitioners included higher and technical institutes, schools and even hospitals. The common case made out was that their applications for allotment of Nazul land at pre-determined rates was at advanced stage after due clearance but on the eve of proposed allotment the policy was changed and the land was now sought to be disposed of only by way of public auction, which would imply much higher rates rather than the pre- determined rates. 2. We may note at this stage that the said Rules have seen various amendments, i.e. the position prevalent prior to 2002, amendments made effective from 5.7.2002, amendments made effective from 9.12.2004 and amendments made ...
State Vs. Sri Kant
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-2011
1. This order will dispose of a petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the learned ASJ dated 04.09.2001 in S.C. No. 89/1998. The prosecution allegations in the case are that on 11.02.1998, at about 07.10 PM, information regarding murder of a woman was received at Police Post Pitam Pura, resulting in police officials visiting the spot, where they discovered the dead body of Smt. Kamala Sharma (hereafter called "the deceased") lying in a pool of blood in the drawing room. The deceased's husband, Sh. Som Prakash Sharma recorded his statement on the basis of which a First Information Report (FIR) was registered. It was alleged by Sh. Som Prakash Sharma that he resided with the deceased, his son, Anil Sharma, and the latter's wife, Smt. Vijaya Sharma (who was examined as PW-14). It was further stated that on 11.02.1998, at about 10.30 10.45 AM, Sh. Som Prakash Sharma had gone to Parliament Street in connection with his pension and when he returned around 02.45 pm...
Shree Chhatrapati Shivaji Education Society Vs. Medical Council of Ind ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to set aside the letters dated 08.02.2011 and 27.04.2011 issued by the MCI, respondent No.1 herein and after setting aside the said letters to direct the respondent No.1-MCI to approve the application of the petitioner for establishment of a new medical college after completing the necessary formalities before 15.07.2011. 2. Notice. Mr.Amit Kumar, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.1-MCI. Mr.Mohit Auluck, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.2. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal today itself. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and owns and manages a 340 bedded running rural hospital i.e. Rural Institute of Medical Sciences in Vidyagiri, Mayani, Taluka Khatav, District Satara, Maharashtra. It is further ...
Avinash Singh and ors Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners claims to be peace loving and law abiding citizenS and thus request from the State to be fair, just and reasonable in its decision while dealing with those citizens who are peace loving and law abiding. 3. For the post of Assistant Commandant in Central Police Forces, a special selection board conducted the proceedings pertaining to appointment of persons who were eligible to be appointed as Assistant Commandant and the process was completed somewhere in the month of June, 2004. 4. Those who qualified were required to be medically examined for the reason Recruitment Rules stipulated the physical standards to be achieved. 5. Petitioners, 7 in number, were declared temporarily medically unfit. They were subjected to a review medical evaluation and on 14.10.2004 were declared fully medically fit. 6. By this date, those who had been empanelled as per the merit position assigned in the select list and were declared fit at the first in...
State Vs. Sunil Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. This leave petition was filed by the State against the Judgment dated 25.03.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the Respondent Sunil Gupta was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 354 Indian Penal Code (IPC) instead of the offence punishable under Section 376/511 IPC (for which he was charged) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of ` 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine the Respondent was required to undergo further simple imprisonment for fifteen days. 2. By order dated 01.04.2011 this Court came to the conclusion that the offence under Section 376/511 IPC was not made out and that the Respondent was rightly convicted under Section 354 IPC. This Court was prima facie of the view that the matter required to be examined on the question of sentence awarded to the Respondent. The leave petition was allowed to this extent only. 3. Facts of the case can be extracted from para 1 to 3 of the impugn...
Dr. Kishore Madhukar Paknikar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. The petitioner working in respondent no.3 Agharkar Research Institute (ARI) of the Maharashtra Association for Cultivation of Science (MACS), an autonomous institute of the respondent no.2 Department of Science & Technology of the Govt. of India, applied for the selection to the post of Director of ARI and the Selection Committee constituted for the said purpose drew up a panel of two people only, in which the petitioner was placed at second position. This writ petition is filed averring that the documents submitted by the person namely Dr. Sangwan whose name appears first on the said panel, were found to be fudged and as such he was not appointed; that the petitioner being second on the panel, claims a right of appointment and seeks mandamus directing the respondents to process the approval required for appointment of the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondents were intending to start a fresh procedure for recruitment for the post of Director. ...
Ram Babu Vs. State (Govt. of Nct) of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. The appellant (hereafter called "Ram Babu") impugns a judgment and order dated 28.07.2010 in S.C. No. 218/2007 whereby he was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 and 307 IPC. For the offence under Section 302 IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of ` 3,000, in default of which he was to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 months. For the offence under Section 307 IPC, the appellant was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years with a fine of ` 2,000, in default of which he was to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, on the night intervening 10/11.08.2005 at about 12:30 AM, a D.D. No. 5B (Ex.PW17/C) was received at PS Sultan Puri regarding a stabbing incident at Inder Enclave. On the basis of the DD entry, ASI Chandan Singh reached Inder Enclave, Phase II, Sultan Puri. He found there that the injured had already been removed to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital (hereafte...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »