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.
M/S Jai Ambey Store Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. The writ petition impugns the order dated 16th June, 2011 of the Appellate Authority, Department of Food, Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Govt. of NCT of Delhi dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 18th January, 2011 of the Assistant Commissioner cancelling the authorization/license granted to the petitioner for a fair price shop No.8982 in the name and style of M/s Jai Ambey Store.2. The following facts are not in dispute.(i) On 9th December, 2010, a raid was conducted by the officials of the Delhi Police on the godown of one Maha Durga Shiv Shakti Store also granted license to operate a fair price shop being no.7784. In the said raid, gunny bags of Specified Food Articles (SFAs) meant for distribution through the shop of the petitioner were found in the godown of Maha Durga Shiv Shakti Store.(ii) An inspection of the shop of the petitioner was carried out on 13th December, 2010 and in physical verification of SFAs 304 bags of wheat and 112 bags of rice of ab...
Ramesh and anr. Vs. State N.C.T. of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. These appeal arise from a common judgment dated 16th April, 2001 convicting the Appellants for offences punishable under Sections 307/34 IPC and order dated 4th May, 2001 directing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one month.2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that on 2nd June, 1995 at about 10.15/10.30 PM when Om Prakash was crossing the road for going to his house he was chased by the Appellants and S, a juvenile who were armed with knives. The Appellant Ramesh gave a knife blow on the abdomen and S gave a knife blow on the chest of Om Prakash. When Om Prakash raised an alarm, S fled away and Appellant Ashok had snatched knife from S and gave a knife blow on the right thigh of Om Prakash. Appellant Ramesh fired a shot towards Om Prakash from a country made revolver. Om Prakash became unconscious. On medical examination he was found to have received ...
Ritu Vats Vs. Vice Chancellor University of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to direct the respondent to give admission to the petitioner under the 'reservation for defence category' under the clause 'wards of ex-servicemen' in the LLB course.2. Facts of the case shorn of unnecessary details are that the petitioner herein is a daughter of an ex-serviceman of the forces and had applied for admission in LLB three years course in the respondent Delhi University under 5% reservation for wards of defence personnel as per Note 9 for admission to LLB Course in the Information Bulletin of the respondent University. As per the petitioner, in the entrance examination she has secured 301 marks and 1415 position in the general category and 17th position in the reserved category. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not called for interview for admission in the said course despite her 17th position in the reserved category as she was told that she ...
Dharam Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. Dharam Singh, the petitioner herein was appointed as Nursing Orderly at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital with effect from 5th October, 1972. He was promoted on ad hoc basis as Operation Theatre Assistant with effect from 1st September, 1984. He continued to work as Operation Theatre Assistant on ad hoc basis till 2001.2. As there was threat of reversion, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 591/2001 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi (tribunal, for short) which was disposed of vide order dated 10th August, 2001. The tribunal noticed that the petitioner's promotion as Operation Theatre Assistant was on ad hoc basis against the promotion quota post, as at that time no one from the feeder cadre, i.e., Operation Theatre Orderly, was found eligible for promotion as Operation Theatre Assistant. The petitioner was a Nursing Orderly and not Operation Theatre Orderly and, therefore, not from the feeder cadre and thus was not eligible for promotion. As per the recruitment rules, 50% of the ...
T.P. Singh Saini and ors. Vs. Guru Harkrishan Public School and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. The appellants, 79 in number, are aggrieved by the decision of the learned single Judge dated 20th April, 2011 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 971/2011, T.P. Singh Saini and Others versus Guru Harkrishan Public School, Fateh Nagar and Ors. in which the following directions have been made:"10. In my opinion, no further direction can be issued to the respondent no.5 Directorate of Education in the present petition. Once it is held that the writ against the respondent no.5 Directorate of Education does not survive, in my opinion the writ against the respondent no.1 School or Chairman of its Managing Committee or its Principal or against the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Managing Committee stated to be apex body controlling the said school and impleaded as respondents no.2 to 4, would not lie.11. I am unable to accept the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that merely because at the time of institution the writ was maintainable for the reason of claiming relief against a party aga...
Dr. Anand Prakash Vs. the Appropriate Authority Under the I.T.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. This writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 7th July, 2006. By the said order, the two orders dated 29th November, 1994 passed by the appropriate authority under Section 269UD in the Chapter XX C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) for compulsory acquisition of two commercial flats bearing No.512 and 512A, Hemkunt Tower (for brevity "the property/properties") was quashed. However, the Court did not grant any relief in the nature of damages as claimed by the petitioner and the parties were left to bear their own costs. The respondent did not challenge the said order, but the petitioner preferred an SLP in the Supreme Court being SLP (Civil) No.20544/2006. This SLP was disposed of on 15th December, 2006 with the following order:- "The High Court has not gone into the question as to whether the petitioner was entitle to compensation or not. The petitioner may file appropriate application for the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed." 2. Thereafter, the p...
Munna Singh Vs. Director General C.i.S.F. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Perused the report of the Enquiry Officer as also the original record pertaining to the proceedings conducted by the Enquiry Officer. 3. On 26.7.2002, a charge-sheet was served on the petitioner listing three charges. 4. The first charge was that the petitioner filed a false and wrong complaint on 13.4.2002 in which he alleged that senior officers of CISF has stolen 9 computers belonging to NTPC from Swastik Bhawan on 02.4.2001 and 18.4.2001. It was alleged that it is an act of indiscipline to make false complaints against senior officers. 5. The second charge was that a false complaint was made by the petitioner that senior officers had committed theft in the Switch Yard of NTPC (Dadri) in the night of 30/31.3.2001. 6. Under the third so called charge, it was intimated to the petitioner that his service record shows that he had earned 15 minor and 1 major penalty in the past for indiscipline or for making false allegations, which fact i.e. ...
Vinay Sharma Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Selected as Constable with CISF and joining the force in February, 2006, petitioner remained under training period till 5.9.2006. On successful completion of the training he was deputed to the 1 st Reserve Battalion CISF station at Barwaha where the petitioner joined on 8.9.2006. 2. It is apparent that the petitioner started working on 8.9.2006 and his work could be appraised only thereafter. 3. Petitioner worked at Barwaha till 18.11.2006, when he was posted to the CISF unit at Kirandul where petitioner joined on 21.11.2006. 4. One Inspector J.S. Rana was already deputed at Kirandul w.e.f. 4.10.2006. He was the immediate superior officer of the petitioner and was the one who had to act as the reporting officer with respect to the ACR of the petitioner. 5. It may be noted that when the petitioner was at Barwaha, for the period 24.9.2006 till 3.10.2006, Inspector J.S.Rana was at Barwaha. We note that there is a dispute with regards the purpose o...
State Vs. Dewan Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. The appeal has reached for hearing today and since none appears for the respondent, we had appointed Ms.Savita Rao, Advocate who is present in Court today as the Amicus Curiae and since the paper book consists of only 30 pages, 12 out of which are the deposition of witnesses recorded at the trial and 7 are the exhibited documents, we had handed over the paper book to learned Amicus Curiae in the forenoon with a request that if learned counsel could prepare herself, arguments could be heard in the post-lunch session. 2. Fee of learned counsel is fixed at `5,500/-, to be paid by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. 3. At the post-lunch session, learned Amicus Curiae has expressed her readiness with the matter and hence we heard arguments. 4. Charged with the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC relating to the injuries suffered by Sunil Kumar PW-2, vide impugned judgment and order dated 8.6.1998, the respondent has been acquitted by the learned Trial Judge. 5. It is set...
Choegyal and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. On 11th March, 1992 the Chinese President visited this country. The Appellants who were Tibetan nationals living in this country, reached outside the Chinese Embassy and raised slogans against China. An information was sent to P.S. Chanakyapuri. On receipt of DD No. 55-B SI Ram Sunder along with Constable Ranbir, Constable Rohtas, Constable Raj Bir, Constable Aas Mohd and DHG Ram Kumar reached outside the Chinese Embassy where the Appellants were raising the slogans against China and quarrelling with the Special Task Force. Stones were lying on the main gate of Chinese Embassy and window panes of the guardroom were lying broken outside the guardroom. The main gate of the Chinese Embassy was broken and broken bottles and its caps were lying near the main gate. Statement of PW2 Ram Shresth Mandal, Guard at the Chinese Embassy was recorded who stated that at about 12:45 P.M. he was in the guardroom inside the Chinese Embassy. At that time, 3-4 taxies came in which some persons were sit...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »