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.
Braham Singh Vs. Sumitra and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2011
1. This is a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 20th September, 2006, alleged to have been executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff. Late Shri Kude Ram, father-in-law of defendant No. 1, and grandfather of defendants No. 2 to 4, whose agricultural land in village Kakrola of Delhi was acquired for planned development of Delhi, applied for allotment of an alternative plot under the scheme of Government for allotting such plots to those whose land is acquired for planned development of Delhi. Late Shri Kude Ram, however, died before any plot of land could be allotted to him though a file had been opened by Land & Building Department of Delhi Government in his lifetime. This is also the case of the plaintiff that sometime in October, 2004, Shri Rambir, husband of defendant No. 1 and father of defendants No. 2 to 4, alongwith other sons of late Shri Kude Ram, offered to sell yet to be allotted plot to him for a consideration of Rs 12 lac and the co...
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sh. Sudhir Vohra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2011
1. Calling in question the legal pregnability of the order dated 24th December, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 3036/2010, the present intra-Court appeal has been preferred under Clause X of the Letters Patent. 2. Filtering the unnecessary details, the facts which are requisite to be exposited are that the respondent, an architect, filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for brevity „the RTI Act) requiring the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (DMRC) to give him "all structural drawings of both the pile foundation and the superstructure, including all steel reinforcement details, foundation details, engineering calculations and soil tests" pertaining to the cantilevered bracket of Metro Pillar No.67 which had collapsed on 12th July, 2009 resulting in the death of six persons and injury to many others. The Central Public Information Officer of the DMRC, by communication dated 7th/10th July, 2009, declined the information sought on the g...
Mr. Govind Parshad Vs. Mr. Lalit Parshad and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2011
1. This is a suit for partition of various movable and immovable properties. The plaintiff is the grandson of Sh. Alopi Parshad and his wife Smt. Shakuntala Devi, both of whom have expired. Sh. Alopi Parshad and Smt. Shakuntala Devi were survived by two sons namely Krishan Parshad and Rajinder Parshad. Sh. Krishan Parshad was survived by four children namely defendant No.1 Lalit Parshad, plaintiff Govind Parshad, defendant No.2 Veena Bansal and late Smt. Shashi Bala Gupta. Smt. Shashi Bala Gupta, who died on 27th October 2004, was survived by defendants No.3 to 5. Sh. Rajinder Parshad, the other son of Sh. Alopi Parshad was survived by one son namely Arun Kumar and three daughters, who are defendants No.7 to 9 in this suit. Sh. Arun Kumar has since died and was survived by defendant No.6, who is his son, his widow Smt. Satya Gupta and daughter Seema Gupta. 2. The partition has been sought in respect of the following immovable properties:- (i) 1, Gwalior Road, Agra Cantt, Agra, Plot of ...
Kunj Aluminium Private Ltd Vs. Koninklijke Phillips Electricity Nv Overruled
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2011
1. This is the 2nd round when Letters Patent Appeal No. 613/2009 is being decided. 2. At the 1st round of litigation, the appellant met with failure, when vide order dated 30.11.2009, the appeal was dismissed in limine. 3. The reasoning of the Division Bench is to be found in paragraph 4 of the order dated 30.11.2009 wherein the findings returned by the learned Single Judge have been pithily crystallized, which para reads as under:- "4. The learned Single Judge observed that keeping in view the nature and extent of the goodwill of the respondents, consumers of the products and the manner and mode in which the goods are marketed and sold, the order of the Appellate Board did not appear to suffer from any illegality. It was further observed that the products like pressure-cookers, electrical bulbs, transistors, etc. were sold in small towns as well as villages and invariably available in the same shop. Distinctiveness acquired by a mark could justify refusing a request for registration i...
Dashrathi Mishra Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2011
1. Petitioner- a Security Guard of C.I.S.F. Unit at Cochin Shipyard was charge-sheeted under Rule 34 of C.I.S.F. Rules, 1969 for the following offence:- "On 27.5.80 he along with 100 members of the force wrongfully confined the commandant, CISF Unit MAMC. Assistant Commandant, BCGL Durgapur in the office chamber of the Commandant CISF Unit MAMC. Durgapur in order to wrongfully force the Commandant to withdraw the suspension order of three members of the force belonging to CISF unit MAMC Durgapur" 2. Enquiry commenced with Memorandum of 20th June, 1980 along with Article of Charge (Annexure-I), statement of allegation in support of the Article of Charge (Annexure-II) and list of witnesses (Annexure-III) being served upon the petitioner who had submitted the written statement of defence on 12 th August, 1980. During the course of disciplinary proceedings, evidence of four witnesses was recorded and the petitioner was given an opportunity to cross-examine them but the petitioner chose not...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›