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.
Tej Pal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-2011
1. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 18.11.1998, appellants Hans Raj and Tej Pal have been convicted for the offence of having kidnapped for ransom Master Wasim, for which offence they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine in sum of `1000/-; in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. A synoptical resume of the case set up by the prosecution against the appellants is that a missing persons complaint Ex.PW-2/A was registered on 03.06.1995 at Police Station Krishna Nagar when Mohd. Shammi PW-2, went to the police station and informed the Duty Officer that his son named Wasim, aged 41/2 years, was missing since 06.30 P.M. on 02.06.1995 and could not be located. 3. Attempts were made by the local police to try and locate Master Wasim but without success. 4. Since Master Wasim could not be located till 04.06.1995, SI Raj Singh who was assigned to look into the complaint made an endorsement beneath the complaint Ex.PW-2/A and vide...
State Vs. Kiran Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-2011
1. Through this leave petition the petitioner/State seeks leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 12.8.2010 acquitting the accused-Respondent of the charge of having committed offence under Section 498/304B/34 Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. The brief facts alleged by the prosecution were that the deceased-Munni married Chandra Kant on 22.11.2002. She committed suicide on 11.09.2003 by hanging herself at her parents' house at T-125, Mangolpuri, Delhi. During investigation it transpired that the deceased (Munni) had left a suicide note which was produced and marked as Ex.2/A. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was inter alia meted out with cruelty which also pertains to demands for dowry made to her which compelled her to commit suicide. The prosecution primarily relied upon the testimony of PW-1 Lalita (Bhabi of the deceased), PW-2 Sh.Kailash Kumar (brother of the deceased) and PW-4 Sh.Bhoma Ram (father of the deceased). ...
Shri Prabhu Dayal Vs. Shri Udal Ram (Deceased) Trough Legal Heirs and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-2011
1 This appeal had impugned the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2008 which has reversed the finding of the trial judge dated 22.11.2005. Vide judgment dated 22.11.2005 the objections filed by Prabhu Dayal under Order 21 Rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) were accepted; it was held that the decree dated 20.02.2003 could not be executed against the objector namely Prabhu Dayal; he was a lawful tenant in the suit premises and could not be dispossessed; his objections stood allowed. The impugned judgment dated 31.10.2008 had reversed this finding; the objections of Prabhu Dayal stood dismissed; court was of the view that the decree holder was admittedly the owner of the suit premises; objector having been inducted in the suit property through the licensee, he could not claim any right after a decree of eviction had been passed against the licensee/judgment debtor. 2 The factual matrix is as follows:- (i) Prabhu Dayal claimed himself to be a tenant h...
Rambir Singh Vs. Uoi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-2011
1. It is the common case of the petitioner and the respondents that one round of bullet was fired from within the precincts of the barrack at BOP Karol Krishna at about 20:45 hours on 10.5.1997. It was alleged that the petitioner was the culprit. The incident was reported and taking cognizance of the offence report and hearing the petitioner the Commandant of the Unit framed a charge and deputed Record of Evidence to be prepared. During Record of Evidence 8 witnesses were examined and needless to state petitioner was given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses but the petitioner did not cross-examined any. 2. Considering the Record of Evidence the Commandant decided to try the petitioner at a Summary Security Force Court and thus trial was ordered. 3. Two charges were alleged against the petitioner being that:- (i) While deployed at BOP Karol Krishna on 10.5.1997 he was found intoxicated at about 20:45 hours; (ii) While deployed at BOP Karol Krishna on 10.5.1997, at about 20:45...
Chander Bhan Vs. Dtc
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-2011
1. The writ petition impugns the order dated 18 th August, 2007 of the Industrial Adjudicator allowing the application of the respondent DTC under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act and thereby granting approval to the action dated 13th December, 1991 of the respondent DTC of removal of the petitioner workman from service. 2. The writ petition has been preferred after three and a half years of the order impugned; there is no explanation whatsoever in the writ petition for the unusual long delay in preferring the same. Upon being quizzed in this regard, the counsel for the petitioner workman states that the petitioner workman has contacted him now only. Upon enquiry as to why the petitioner workman did not contact earlier, it is generally stated that he had settled down in his native village and did not have money to contest the proceedings and has filed the present writ petition only after mustering up the expenses required to be incurred therefor. 3. Without such pleas being taken on oa...
Sh. Ghanshyam Dass Gupta and anr. Vs. Sh. Prem Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-2011
1 This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 05.03.2009 which has reversed the finding of the trial Judge dated 03.07.2008. Vide judgment and decree dated 03.07.2008 the suit filed by the plaintiffs Ghanshyam Dass Gupta & Anr seeking possession of the suit property (i.e. two rooms with common latrine and open and covered verandah on the ground floor of property bearing No. 2918, Aryapura Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110007) had been decreed. The impugned judgment had reversed this finding; suit of the plaintiffs stood dismissed. 2 The case of the plaintiff is that his father Baishakhi Ram Gupta was the owner of the aforenoted suit property. He had tenanted the suit premises to Ram Sharan. After the death of Ram Sharan his widow Khazani Devi had inherited the tenancy which tenancy was terminated during her lifetime. Defendant who is her son is an unauthorized occupant. Rent has also not been paid. Legal notice dated 03.10.2006 (Ex.PW-1/7) had been served upon the defendant termina...
Col Shekhar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-24-2011
Common Judgment 1. The petitioner filed Writ Petition (C) Nos. 3067 of 1998 and 18315 of 2006 before the Delhi High Court. In W.P (C) No. 3067 of 1998, the challenge was against Attachment Order No. C/06270/SC/160/AG.DV-2 dated 11.6.1998 and the order initiating Court of Inquiry. During the pendency of W.P (C) No. 3067 of 1998, General Court martial proceedings were held against the petitioner and he was found guilty of the charge under Army Act Section 52(f), against which he filed W.P (C) No. 18315 of 2006. Both the writ petitions were transferred to this Tribunal and are being disposed of treating them as appeals under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007. 2. It is graciously submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that T.A No. 447 of 2009 (W.P (C) No. 3067 of 1998) has become infructuous since final decision has been taken by the GCM. T.A No. 447 of 2009 is, therefore, not pressed and is accordingly dismissed. What remains to be considered is T.A No. 538 of 2010 ...
Ex Sub Dilbagh Singh Suhag Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-24-2011
1. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was brought by the appellant against the General Court Martial proceedings, whereby he was convicted for the offences under Sections 52(f) and 63 of the Army Act on different counts and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to be dismissed from service. 2. It is said that the entire case was fabricated against the appellant. He had nothing to do with the aforesaid incident. It is virtually a matter of mistaken identity. He was posted as JCO Quarter Master in the Centre QM Office from August 2002 to May 2003 and was working as Superintendent in CQM Office with no store holding responsibilities. There is a major difference with regard to the responsibilities of JCO QM in Central QM Office, where the appellant was posted, and JCO Clothing in QM Clothing Section. But the GCM, by arbitrarily stretching the arrangement made in the unit standing order (Annexure P16), illegally fixed the responsibility...
Ex Maj Yr Sharma Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-24-2011
1. The challenge in this O.A is directed against the General Court Martial proceedings, whereby the applicant was held guilty of having committed the offences under Army Act Sections 52(f) and 63 and sentenced him to be cashiered. 2. The facts giving rise to this O.A in a nutshell are: The applicant joined the Army in 1976 as SKT other rank in Army Medical Corps (AMC). On 30.1.2002, he was posted as Company Instructor in AMC Centre and School, Lucknow, which imparts training to recruits and persons selected for SL commission. On establishment of AMC Centre and School, one officer of the rank of Lieutenant Colonel (now Colonel) is authorised as Quarter Master (QM) who is responsible for the day to day supply of rations, clothes, etc. Lt Col T. Kishan was the QM at the material time, i.e. from 1.4.2001 to 28.2.2003. Considering the workload, the Commandant used to divert two officers posted on other jobs to assist the Central Quarter Master (CQM) but basic responsibility and control and ...
Lt Col Hardev Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-24-2011
1. In this writ petition, the challenge is against the General Court Martial proceedings, whereby the appellant (Lt Col Hardev Singh) was held guilty of having committed the offence under Section 69 of the Army Act read with Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to be dismissed from service. The writ petition stood transferred to this Tribunal and was treated to be an appeal under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007. 2. The allegation against the appellant is that while serving as a doctor in the Dental Corps of the Indian Army at Shillong, he committed a civil offence using criminal force to four women with intent to outrage their modesty. A charge sheet on four counts was issued to him on 8.4.2004. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. He was put to trial by the GCM, which held him guilty and sentenced to be dismissed from service. His pre and post confirmation petitions ended in dismissal. Hence the appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant ha...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »