Delhi Court July 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.
Ashok Kumar Vs. Dg. Bsf and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2011
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges on the proportionality of the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner and gives up all other points urged in the writ petition. 2. The backdrop facts are that on 18.3.1996 petitioner was charge sheeted for having committed an offence punishable under Section 26 of the BSF Act 1968. It was alleged that on 26.2.1996, petitioner was detained for dak duty at BOP Rania, which he did not perform and was found in a state of intoxication. 3. Completing the proceedings pertaining to hearing of the charge under Rule 45 of the BSF Rule, the Commandant of the unit directed the Record of Evidence to be prepared at which proceedings 4 persons were examined. Sharwan Singh stated, as per the charge, that the petitioner was detained for dak duty and sought permission of the Coy Commander to proceed to Amritsar and make a STD call to his wife. The petitioner came to him to collect the dak. He told the petitioner that the same was not ready and he should rever...
R.K.P. Nishad Vs. C.B.I.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
1. The Appellant has been convicted by learned Special Judge in a corruption case number 52/94 vide judgment dated 18th July, 2002 and sentenced vide order dated 22nd July, 2002 as under: "Sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years R.I. under Section 7 as well as under Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and also to pay a fine of `1,000/- each for both these offences and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months each.2. By virtue of present appeal, the Appellant/ convict has assailed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. The prosecution case as set out in brief is that the Appellant was employed as Producer, Grade-II, in Doordarshan Kendra, Directorate of Doordarshan. Neeraj Kumar (PW1) had approached him for telecasting his drama "Dahej" in Krishi Darshan programme of Doordarshan on TV. The drama was approved by the Department, but the Appellant was allegedly shifting the dates of rehearsal for some ...
Jagdish Chandra Makhija Vs. State (Cbi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 05.04.2002 and Order dated 08.04.2002, whereby the appellant/accused was convicted by learned Special Judge under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter, referred to as the Act?) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years for each offence. He was also ordered to pay a fine of `5,000/- on each count. In case of default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further imprisonment of six months each. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case as unfolded at the trial is that the accused Jagdish Chandra Makhija was working as Assistant Director in Delhi Zone, Enforcement Directorate, office at Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi. He was allegedly handling the case registered under FERA against Rattan Kumar Modi (Complainant) (PW2). A search was carried out at the residence of the complainant on 14.09.1988 by some officers of Directorate of Enforcement ...
Firoz Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
1. By way of this application, the appellant Firoz claims that he was a juvenile in conflict with law as defined in Section 2(l) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') on the date of the incident, that is, on 13.01.2003. 2. We find that even in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C, he had given his age as about 24 years. The said statement was recorded on 11.05.2010. This would indicate that he was born sometime in the year 1986. Along with this application, a copy of the transfer certificate of Rajkiya Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Bagridi, Bagro, Kodarma, Jharkhand was filed which indicated his date of birth recorded at the time of his admission to be 05.10.1986. By virtue of our order dated 28.04.2011, we had directed the respondent/ State to have the school certificate verified. The status report regarding the verification of the said school certificate has been submitted by the Station House Officer, Poli...
Kamla Prasad and anr. Vs. C.B.i.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
1. Both these appeals arise out of a common Judgment dated 19.08.2002 and the Order on Sentence dated 20.08.2002 of learned Special Judge Shri R.K. Gauba in CC No. 65/1994. Both the accused were convicted vide the impugned judgment under Section 120-B IPC and Section 7 and 13(1) (d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'P.C. Act') and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment ('RI' for short) for four years with a fine of `5,000/- each under Section120-B IPC and under Section 7 and under Section 13(2) of P.C. Act. In case of default in payment of fine, the accused were to undergo further RI for three months on each count. Since the evidence recorded was common and also the cases against both the accused were disposed of by a common judgment, these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The prosecution case as set out briefly is that one Mahesh Kumar (PW-3) had applied for transfer of his telephone connection to his new residence and an o...
A.V.R. Overseas Pvt Ltd. Vs. Mahmood Ahmed Khan and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
This application, filed by defendant no. 1 for condonation of delay in seeking leave to contest the suit was allowed by the Joint Registrar on 9th February, 2011 subject to payment of Rs. 20,000/- as costs. The costs, however, have not been paid and no one is present for defendant no.1. Since the costs have not been paid, the condonation of delay is deemed to have been refused. The application is dismissed. IA No. 8033/2009 (by defendant no. 1 for leave to defend) No one is present for the applicant even on the third call. The application of defendant no. 1 for condonation of delay in seeking leave to contest has been dismissed today due to non-payment of cost, subject to which the delay was condoned. Hence, this application is also dismissed in default as well as barred by time.IA No. 5879/2009 (by defendant no. 2 for leave to contest the suit)1. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant no. 1 who is trading in ferrous, non-ferrous and plastic scraps had approached the plaintiff...
M. Arun Ahluwalia Vs. Arun Oberoi and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
1. This is a petition for quashing of order dated 19th March, 2009 summoning the petitioner in criminal complaint No. 92/5/08 under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred as NI Act) and the said complaint. 2. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to note the brief facts of the case. The Respondent No. 1and his wife along with M/s May Co. Freight & Travels Pvt. Ltd. were shareholders of M/s Kausauli Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Co. registered at Jalandar City. They were holding 35,000 shares of M/s Kausauli Resort in totality and were Promoter/Directors of the said company. On 25th August, 2003 the Respondent No.1 along with his wife & M/s May Co. Freight & Travels Pvt. Ltd. sold their shareholding to Captain NP Ahluwalia i.e. Brother of the petitioner & Captain P.S. Chimni for `1,49,79,000 as per MOU dated 25th August, 2003. It is alleged that the petitioner had discharged this liability in part for purchasing the share holding of M/s Kasauli Resort ...
Kirori Mal Vs. Dir (Gen.) Crpf and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
1. The Petitioner was recruited as a Constable with CRPF and was on probation. The recruitment was at a open competitive test held at Phulaguri, District Nagaon (Assam), and since no Medical Officer of CRPF was available, the Police Surgeon of Nagaon, as approved by the Regional IG, CRPF, subjected the Petitioner to a medical examination, and found him fit in all respect. 2. The Petitioner was given preliminary training, pending allocation of a seat for basic training at RTC-I, CRPF, Neemuch and thus he remained at Nagaon till September 1995, when he was sent for basic training at Neemuch. 3. During training, the Medical Officer detecting the Petitioner for defective vision, being 6/12, and thus opined that the Petitioner was not fit to undergo training. 4. Petitioner submitted an appeal, accompanied therewith filed an opinion obtained by him from one Dr.A.K. Barthakur, Ophthalmologist Surgeon of Golaghat, Assam, certifying that the Petitioner's vision was 6/6. 5. The DIG, CRPF noted t...
Sunil Bagai Vs. Gnct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
1. After hearing arguments we had dismissed the appeal yesterday i.e. 7.7.2011. We had recorded that reasons would be dictated in Chamber and would be made available to the appellant today i.e. 8.7.2011. 2. The appeal was dismissed in limine by a cryptic order holding that there was no merit in the appeal. The appellant preferred a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court. Vide order dated 4.3.2011, the order dated 11.12.2000 dismissing the appeal has been set aside. The appeal has been restored for fresh hearing. 3. Relevant facts, noted by the learned Single Judge, are that the appellant had sought a direction that the Collector of Stamps should refund `18,277/- together with interest @ 24% per annum with effect from 14.8.2001 to the appellant and that the appellant be paid damages in sum of ` 1,00,000/- on account of mala fide, oppressive and capricious acts of the respondent. 4. The learned Single Judge has noted the back drop facts pleaded by the appellant. 5....
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Sh. R.L.Chugh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
1. The present writ petition seeks quashing of the Award dated 22 nd December, 1994 passed in ID No.297/1990 whereby the interruption caused in the employment of the workman was held to be illegal and the Petitioner was directed to reinstate the Respondent No.2 with continuity of service and full back wages. 2. Respondent No.2 was working as a daily wager with the Petitioner and it is claimed that he abandoned his job on 20th March, 1989. Thereafter, four letters were sent to him calling upon him to resume his duty but he neither sought medical leave nor joined the duty. It is denied that he was terminated and as per the Petitioner it was a case of abandonment of the job by not reporting for the work. Respondent No.2 in his statement of claims alleged that he was taken into employment with effect from 1 st June, 1984 as a Mali/baildar in Horticulture Department and was posted at Narela Zone of the Petitioner. He was treated as a daily wager and was lastly being paid Rs.950/- per month ...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »