Delhi Court August 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.
Surender Malhotra Vs.Agricultural Products Market Committee and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2011
1. The father of the petitioner is claimed to have been the owner of built up property bearing No.356 in Block-A comprising the basement, ground and first floor in New Sabzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi. The counsel for the petitioner states that the perpetual lease deed of the land underneath the said property had been granted to the father of the petitioner by the DDA. It is stated that the said property is situated in the New Sabzi Mandi which is being managed by the respondents no.1 & 2 APMC. 2. It is further admitted by the petitioner that his father executed and registered a General Power of Attorney dated 20th December, 1995 with respect to the said property in favour of the respondent no.3 Sh. Harbhajan Singh and the said Sh. Harbhajan Singh since then is in possession of the property. 3. The petitioner claims that his father died on 10 th June, 2007 and the other natural heirs of his father have relinquished their rights in the aforesaid property in favour of the petitioner. It i...
Management of Ashok Hotel Vs. Mohinder Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2011
1. Management of Hotel Ashok has filed the present intra court appeal against the decision dated 10th May, 2011, dismissing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12391/2006 filed by them. Learned single Judge has upheld the award dated 25th October, 2005, passed by Industrial adjudicator holding inter-alia that the appellant Management had failed to lead evidence to prove the charges against the workman Mohinder Singh, the respondent herein. The respondent workman was awarded punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect and had raised an industrial dispute. Before the industrial adjudicator, the appellant conceded and accepted that the departmental proceedings were vitiated and there was violation of principles of natural justice. However, the appellant Management was given an opportunity to prove the misconduct by the respondent workman. 2. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the industrial adjudicator has wrongly ignored and rejected...
Syndicate of the Press of the Universtiy of Cambridge on Behalf of the ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2011
1. The present appeal is filed against the judgment by the learned Single Judge in CS (OS) No. 1274 of 2004, whereby the Hon`ble Single Judge dismissed the suit filed by the appellant herein to restrain the defendants therein (respondents in this appeal) from selling books published by them and titled MBD English Guide B.A./B.Sc./B.COM Part I (Guru Nanak Dev University), MBD English Guide B.A./B.Sc./B.COM Part II (Guru Nanak Dev University) and MBD English Guide B.A./B.Sc./B.COM Part III (Guru Nanak Dev University). 2. The appellant, Cambridge University Press, the printing and publishing house integratedly attached to the University of Cambridge is one of the oldest printing and publishing houses of the world..Advance English Grammar by Martin Hewings, one of the leading publications of the appellant and the subject matter herein, has been prescribed and used by many universities all over the Globe including India. This work is also prescribed in Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, P...
Mohd Mussabir and anr Vs. State and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2011
1. This judgment would dispose of two appeals, by which, the complainants/informant claim to be aggrieved by the conviction of the second respondent (hereafter called Jamil Ahmed) as well as the direction that he ought to be given the benefit of probation. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment dated 19.02.2011 held Jamil Ahmed guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 323/34 IPC and directed him to be released on probation subject to his furnishing a bond in the sum of ` 5000/- with the surety of the same amount. 2. The prosecution alleged that PW-4 and PW-8 were Jamil Ahmed's neighbours and he used to harass them as well as their family members claiming that he owned land on which the building containing the flat (where they reside) was situated. Jamil Ahmed also apparently claimed that the building had to be demolished. It was stated that on 09.03.2006 at 4:00 PM, PW-4 went down to fetch milk; at that time Jamil Ahmed was standing down stairs; he again...
Purushottam Dev Arya Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2011
1. By this application, the Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case RC- DAI-2010-A-0044 for offences under Section 120B read with Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the entire case was allegedly opened initially on the complaint of one Sangeeta Goyal. Pursuant to the complaint of Ms. Sangita Goyal, a letter was written by the CEO of the Organizing Committee to Shri Bhatnagar, the Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Sports explaining that there was no illegality or irregularity in the contract awarded to M/s Swiss Timing Ltd., Switzerland (STL). The matter was examined by the members of various Committees including the Executive Board, the Finance Sub-Committee. Thus, the project was neither cleared by Mr. Bhanot nor Mr. Kalmadi against whom allegations of conspiracy have been made. The allegation of the prosecution that the contract was structured to f...
J. P. Sharma Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2011
1. The Petitioner, who at the time of filing of the present writ petition was an Assistant Director (Library) in the Indian Council of Historical Research („ICHR), Respondent No. 2, filed the writ petition on 2nd August 1999 praying that a direction should be issued to the Union of India through the Ministry of Human Resource Development („HRD Ministry), Respondent No. 1, and the ICHR to appoint the Petitioner to the vacant post of Deputy Director (Library) [„DD (L)] in the ICHR and to quash the action of Respondent No. 2 ICHR in advertising the said post for direct recruitment. 2. The Petitioner was appointed as a Library Assistant in the ICHR on 22nd February 1975 in the pay scale of Rs. 425-700/-. The service conditions of the employees of the ICHR are governed by the ICHR Service Regulations, 1972 (as amended upto 1989). The changes proposed to the regulations since then are still pending with the HRD Ministry for approval. In terms of the 1989 Regulations, there ...
A Krishna Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2011
1. By this application, the Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case RC- DAI-2010-A-0044 for offences under Section 120B read with Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'the PC Act'). 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that none of the allegations made against the Petitioner disclose the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 420, 468, 471, 476 of IPC. The allegations are vague and bald. There is no material annexed to the charge sheet to establish any of the offences alleged against the Petitioner. No allegation has been made against the Petitioner under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The Petitioner has joined the investigation and appeared before the Investigating Officer on 7th February, 2011, 11th February, 2011 and 12th February, 2011 and was interrogated till late hours of night. A search was also conducted on 11th February, 2011 ...
Shweta Marwaha and anr Vs. Vinayak Marwaha
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2011
1. The suit was filed by Shweta Marwaha and Shubhra Marwaha, daughters of late Shri Vinayak Marwaha against him. The suit resulted in a compromise decree being passed on 26.05.1995. The suit was decreed in terms of the family settlement Ex.C-1 and the site plan Ex.C-2 which formed part of the decree. 2. At the time of the settlement, Shubhra Marwaha- plaintiff No.2 was sixteen years of old whereas plaintiff No.1 - Shweta Marwaha was a major. As per the settlement, the property bearing No.C-36A, Kalkaji, New Delhi was to be divided between the parties to that suit. The ground floor along with one-third undivided share in the land underneath building was to belong to the defendant - Vinayak Marwaha, whereas the first and second floor along with two-third undivided share in the land underneath the building was to belong to the plaintiffs. The compromise stipulated that the actual and physical possession of first and second floor would be given on plaintiff No.2 attaining the age of 25 yea...
Om Prakash and ors. Vs. Uoi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2011
1. These appeals arise out of the judgments of the learned Reference Court disposing different References made by the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act(„the Act in short) in respect of the lands belonging to the appellants in village Amberhai which were acquired vide Award No.13/1991-92 pursuant to the notifications dated 10/7/1990 and 24/8/90 under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Act. Since same points were involved in all the appeals they were heard together and now are being disposed of also together by this common judgment. 2. Vide award no. 13/91-92 dated 10/3/92 market value of the land falling in block A was fixed @ Rs. 4.65 lakhs per acre i.e. Rs.96,975/- per bigha and @ Rs18,500/- per bigha in respect of land in block B. Dissatisfied with the said land rates fixed by the LAC, the landowners- appellants got references made to the District Judge under section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court , however, rejected the claims of the...
Beena Devi and ors Vs. Union of India and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2011
1. The four petitioners claim to be the daughters of a pre-deceased son of the respondent no.2 Shri Ramanand. The land, claimed to be belonging to HUF of Shri Ramanand is stated to have been acquired and it is stated that the compensation therefor is lying with the respondent no.1 LAC, North West, Kanjhawala, Delhi. The petitioners contend that the respondent no.2 is of old age and of unsound mind and the other two sons of the respondent no.2 are attempting to appropriate the entire compensation unto themselves. This writ petition has been filed to restrain the release of the compensation to the respondent no.2. 2. The petitioners, if have any claim to the compensation were/are required to make the same in accordance with law before the concerned authorities and if any dispute arises with respect thereto, to seek a reference of the same to the District Judge. Moreover if the respondent no.2 is stated to be a person of unsound mind, proceedings for appointment of the guardian of his per...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »