Delhi Court July 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Dharambir and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. The Appellants Dharambir, Raghubir Singh and Satbir @ Sattey (the Appellant Ratti Kaur has expired and the proceedings against her have abated) stand convicted by the judgment and order dated 24.03.1998 and 27.03.1998 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi, ("the impugned judgment") for offences punishable under Section 498A and Section 302 Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 IPC. They were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC and a rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for the offence under Section 498A IPC. Apart from this sentence, fines were also imposed. 2. First, the facts. Seema (the deceased) was married to Appellant Dharambir about a year and half prior to 30.08.1991. On the night of 30.08.1991 she sustained burn injuries and was removed to Safdarjung Hospital by PW-1 Kishan Kapoor (her immediate neighbour) and PW-2 Mahavir Singh (her brother-in-law) who used to reside in her neighbourhood. Ratti Kaur (now deceased) was Se...
Shiv Swarup Sharma Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. The respondents are served and we find only respondent No.4 appearing. 2. On the express statement of learned counsel for the petitioner that the writ petition would be argued today itself we dispose of the application and for the reason stated therein recall the order dated 4.4.2011 dismissing the writ petition in default. 3. The writ petition is restored for hearing on merits.WP(C) No.12899/2005 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Inartistically drafted Original Application has resulted in the Central Administrative Tribunal losing focus and hence a decision which requires to be set aside and matter remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. 3. As India moves in the 2nd decade of the 21st Century and 2nd generation legal reforms are being pushed by the Government; with the history of the bar in India dating back to when the Chartered High Courts were set up in this country in the mid 18th Century; we hope and expect that the decision of the Supreme Court which requi...
Union of India Vs. Pushpa Rani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
1. This application has been filed by the appellant under Order 41 rule 3A and Section 151 of the CPC and section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 367 days in filing the present appeal against the judgment dated 13.05.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in LAC no. 641 A/08 whereby the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector @ Rs 15,70,000/- per acre in respect of acquired land of the respondent was enhanced to Rs.19,13,765/- per acre.2. The reasons for condonation of delay pleaded in this application are reproduced below:" That the learned additional judge pronounced the impugned order on 13.5.2010. The application for the certified copy of the same was applied on 20.5.2010 and the same was received by the counsel who defended the appellant on 22.5.2010. After receiving the certified copy of the same was sent to the Deputy Legal Advisor (land and building )for his opinion . The D.L.A (L&B) opined on 7.7.2010 to file the a...
Subhash Chand Aggarwal Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
1. The petitioner has challenged vires of Rule 6 (j) (v) of Delhi Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1959 (Rules, for short) as being violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and also on the ground that it suffers from the vice of excessive delegation; is beyond the scope, sphere and does not conform to the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (Act, for short).2. The petitioner had entered into two separate agreements to sell for purchase of two industrial plots each measuring 6 Biswas (about 300 square yards) in Khasra No.81/154 with respondent Nos.3 and 4 and in Khasra No. 81/155 with respondent Nos.5 and 6 situated in village Bakauli, Delhi-36.The said respondents, it is alleged, did not abide by and refused to comply with the contractual terms and, therefore, the petitioner has filed two civil suits for specific performance. During the pendency of the civil suits, the said respondents took the ...
A Mumla Bibi Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
1. The petitioner is a Nursing Officer (Lt.Col.) in the Military Nursing Service of the Indian Army. Put in tabular form, location where petitioner served and the period is as under:-Sr. Unit From To date Location Div/Area/Comm date and No.1. Military Dec 85 Feb 86 Jalandher Western Hospital (Punjab) Command2. Command Feb 86 Feb 88 Bangalore Southern Hospital Command3. 184 MH Feb 88 Aug 90 Suratgarh Western Command (Raj)4. Military Aug 90 Nov 92 Wellington Southern Hospital Command5. Military Nov 92 Nov 95 Bareilly Central Hospital Command6. Military Nov 95 Aug 98 Avadi Southern Hospital Command7. 5 Airforce Aug 98 Dec 01 Jorhat Eastern Hospital (Assam) Command8. Military Dec 01 May 05 Ambala Western Hospital Command9. 153 May 05 Aug 07 Leh/High Northern General Altitude Command Hospital Field Area10. Military Aug 07 Till Meerut Central Hospital date Command2. It is pleaded by the petitioner that in the year 2005- 07, posted at a high altitude i.e. Leh, due to extreme cold weather peti...
Union of India Vs. Radhey Shyam
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
1. This application has been filed by the appellant under Order 41 rule 3A and Section 151 of the CPC and section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 176 days in filing the present appeal against the judgment dated 1.05.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in LAC no. 97A/08 whereby the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector @ Rs 15,70,000/- per acre in respect of acquired land of the respondent was enhanced to Rs.16,99,042/- per acre.2. The reasons for condonation of delay pleaded in this application are reproduced below:"That the learned additional judge pronounced the impugned order on 1.5.2010. The application for the certified copy of the same was applied on 02.6.2010 and the same was received by the counsel who defended the appellant on 05.6.2010. After receiving the certified copy of the same was sent to the Deputy Legal Advisor (land and building )for his opinion . The D.L.A (L&B) opined on 22.7.2010 to file the appea...
Rashid Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 67/2009 on 25.09.2009. The case arose out of FIR No. 368/2005 registered under Sections 302/120B/34 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at police station Bhajanpura on 03.09.2005. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the appellants Nasir and Rashid in these two appeals were found guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 302/120B IPC and the appellant Rashid was additionally convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/120B/34 IPC read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The appellants were also aggrieved by the order on sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi on 30.09.2009, whereby the appellant Nasir was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for life and to also pay a fine of ` 5,000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months in respect of the of...
Union of India Vs. Ishwar Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
1. This application has been filed by the appellant under Order 41 rule 3A and Section 151 of the CPC and section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 171 days in filing the present appeal against the judgment dated 3.05.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in LAC no. 25 A/08 whereby the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector @ Rs 15,70,000/- per acre in respect of acquired land of the respondent was enhanced to Rs.19,13,765/- per acre.2. The reasons for condonation of delay pleaded in this application are reproduced below:"That the learned additional judge pronounced the impugned order on 3.5.2010. The application for the certified copy of the same was applied on 14.5.2010 and the same was received by the counsel who defended the appellant on 17.5.2010. After receiving the certified copy of the same was sent to the Deputy Legal Advisor (land and building )for his opinion . The D.L.A (L&B) opined on 8.6.2010 to file the appea...
Dr. Devinder Kumar Gupta and ors. Vs. Realogy Corporation and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
1. This Appeal challenges the Order dated 4.5.2011 of the learned Single Judge who has concluded that the Court cannot go into the controversy concerning the existence or validity of the Arbitration Clause invoked by one of the parties; nor can it issue an injunction restraining that party from continuing with the arbitration proceedings initiated by that party before the American Arbitration Association. Succinctly stated, the case of the Appellant is that the Arbitration Clause featured as paragraph 11 of the.Century 21 International Sub Franchise Agreement” is only between the styled Respondent No.1, Realogy Corporation and DGS Realtors Pvt. Ltd. This Agreement is obviously and apparently a standard form contract prepared by the Claimant. It is salutary to bear in mind that the rule of contra proferentem enjoins Courts to lean in favour of the party which is not the originator or drafter of the document if a contradiction is encountered. We have perused the said Agreement date...
P.B.Bansal Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
1. The petitioner was enrolled with the Border Security Force on 27.06.1966. He was promoted to the rank of Subedar Major (Hindi Translator) in November 1989 and was posted at the Headquarters of BSF at New Delhi.2. A complaint of petitioner receiving illegal gratification to manage transfer-postings was received and taking cognizance of the offence report the Commandant drew up a Charge Sheet dated 2.11.1992 alleging the following charges:-"FIRST CHARGE BSF ACCEPTED FOR HIMSELF BSF ACT SEC 41(e) GRATIFICATION AS A REWARD FOR PROCURING THE TRANSFER OF A PERSON IN THE SERVICE in that he, at New Delhi, during the year 1988-91 accepted a sum of `600/- (Rupees six hundred) only, from No.66777358 Constable Chhabi Ram for procuring his transfer from 33 Bn BSF to BSF Academy Tekanpur.SECOND CHARGE BSF AGREEING TO OBTAIN FOR HIMSELF BSF ACT SEC 41(e) GRATIFICATION AS A MOTIVE FOR PROCURING TRANSFER OF A PERSON IN THE SERVICE in that he, at New Delhi, during the year 1991, agreed to obtain `120...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »