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.
State Vs. Deepak Donyal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-2011
1. Criminal law was set into motion on 08.05.1993 at about 05.30 P.M. when HC Joginder Singh PW-14, recorded DD No.16, Ex.PW-11/A, that an unknown person had informed over the telephone of an incident of stabbing by knife having taken place in front of house bearing Municipal No.B-25, Sawal Nagar. 2. A copy of Ex.PW-11/A was handed over to Inspector Ram Kumar PW-11 who accompanied by Ct.Akhilesh Tyagi PW-8, went to the place in question where he met Krishan Kumar PW-1, who informed that his brother Rakesh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the "Deceased") has been stabbed and removed to the hospital by his neighbours and that he had witnessed the incident. Inspector Ram Kumar recorded the statement Ex.PW-11/A of Krishan Kumar and made an endorsement Ex.PW-11/B thereon, and at around 07.00 P.M. forwarded the same to the police station through Ct.Akhilesh Tyagi PW-8, for registration of an FIR. Const. Akhilesh Tyagi took the endorsement Ex.PW-11/B to the police station and handed over the...
Maya Chanchal and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-2011
1. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 22.09.1997 and order on sentence dated 23.09.1997 whereby the Appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 452/307/392 /397/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and were sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of ` 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months for the offence punishable under Section 452 read with Section 34 IPC; RI for seven years and to pay a fine of ` 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC; RI for seven years and also to pay fine of ` 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. The Appellants were further awarded RI for life and also to pay a fine of ` 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two years ...
S.L.Sachdev and anr Vs. D.D.A.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-2011
1. The petitioners had participated in an auction held by the respondent DDA in the year 1993 and had as a term of the said auction deposited an amount of `12 lacs as earnest with the respondent DDA. Though the petitioners were the highest bidder but their bid was not accepted/confirmed. The same was subject matter of W.P.(C)5143/1994 earlier preferred by the petitioners but which was ultimately dismissed vide judgment dated 26th October, 2010. It was found in the said judgment that the respondent DDA immediately upon non-acceptance of the bids had repeatedly tendered the refund of the said amount of `12 lacs to the petitioners but the petitioners had refused to accept the same. The Division Bench of this Court thus while dismissing the petition directed the respondent DDA to return the said amount of `12 lacs to the petitioners. 2. This petition has been filed seeking the relief of return of the said amount of `12 lacs with interest. 3. Upon it being put to the counsel for the petitio...
Khazan Singh and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-2011
1. By this appeal, the Appellants have challenged their conviction in case FIR No. 284/1996 under Section 325/34 IPC and Section 452/34 IPC and sentence for Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year on both the counts which was to run concurrently. During the pendency of the present appeal, Appellant No.1 Khazan Singh died. Hence, appeal qua him stood abated vide order dated 9th September, 2010. Since the Appellants were not present initially bailable warrants were issued pursuant to which Appellant No.2 Mangat Singh was present. However, Appellant No.3 Pritam Singh was not present as he was not found residing at the given address and, thus, non- bailable warrants were issued on 9th September, 2010. On 17th February, 2011, the surety of Appellant No.3 appeared in Court and stated that he had informed the Appellant No.3 to be present, however he still did not appear. Again non-bailable warrants were issued against Appellant No.3 to be executed through SHO concerned. On 16th March, ...
M.S.Dabas Vs. Uoi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-2011
1. Appointed as a constable with Border Security Force in the year 1976 and attached to the 55th Battalion, the petitioner earned a promotion to the rank of Sub.Inspector (Clerk) in the year 1993. Pursuant to secret information received in December 1995 by SI Sunil Kumar who was working in the Vigilance Branch that the petitioner had secured recruitments for 3 persons, namely, Sucha Singh, Sunder Singh and Raj Kumar in BSF in lieu of money received by him, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by SI Sunil Kumar. 2. During the course of the preliminary enquiry apart from the petitioner, 6 persons named Sunder Singh, Sucha Singh, Raj Kumar, Rajpal, Ct.Rajesh and Nk.Inder Pal Singh were examined. 3. Sunder Singh and Sucha Singh stated that the petitioner got them recruited in BSF for a consideration of `30,000/- each and Raj Kumar stated that the petitioner got him recruited for a consideration of `25,000/- which was paid by his uncle Rajpal who likewise made a statement confirming what was...
Global Educational and Social Trust Vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-2011
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the decision of the respondent No.1 University not to grant affiliation to the petitioner institute. 2. Background of facts that has led to the filing of the present petition is that the petitioner institute which is situated in Faridabad applied for approval to AICTE for starting an MBA course, which after inspection granted the said approval on 29.6.2010. That the petitioner on 16.7.2010 applied to the respondent University for affiliation for session 2010-2011 which was rejected on the ground of non-furnishing of the No-objection certificate by the State of Haryana. Feeling aggrieved with the said act of the University, the petitioner filed a writ petition WPC 5331/2010 whereby vide order dated 10.8.2010, the court directed the university to scrutinize and consider the request of the petitioner expeditiously. However, the respondent university approached the court for clarifica...
Taj Services Ltd. and anr. Vs. Industrial Tribunal-i Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-2011
1. W.P. (C) No. 585 of 1997 is directed against the Award of the Industrial Tribunal („Tribunal) in ID No. 56 of 1988 of 30th September 1996 as well as the Award of the same date in ID No. 10 of 1989. It also challenges the order of reference dated 28th March 1988 made by the Delhi Administration to the Tribunal. 2. W.P. (C) No. 589 of 1997 is directed against the Award dated 30th September 1996 of the Tribunal in ID No. 56 of 1988 as well as the Award of the same date in ID No. 3 of 1988. It also challenges an order dated 28th March 1988 of the Delhi Administration referring the dispute to the Tribunal. Factual background 3. The Petitioner, which is headquartered in New Delhi, has its printing division at Noida in Uttar Pradesh. It is stated that in the printing division, it has installed sophisticated printing machines and employs about 70 workmen. The printing division at Noida in Uttar Pradesh is stated to be registered under the Uttar Pradesh Factories Act. Its day-to-day op...
ifci Limited Vs. Narender Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-2011
1. This order is in continuation of the earlier order dated 21 st July, 2011. The counsel who was earlier appearing for the respondent / alleged contemnor states that he is no longer appearing in this matter and has returned the file. He however identifies the respondent / alleged contemnor and his wife Smt. Pushpa, present in Court in person. 2. The respondent / alleged contemnor appearing in person states that the Flat No.C-203, IFCI Staff Colony, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi is in occupation of his wife Smt. Pushpa and he himself was ousted from the said flat four years ago and has been residing at Faridabad for the last four years. 3. Smt. Pushpa appearing in person also confirms that the respondent / alleged contemnor is not residing in the said accommodation and states that he is residing with his parents. She also states that she has filed legal proceedings for maintenance and under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the respondent / alleged contemnor a...
Jitender Kumar Goel Vs. Director, Directorate of Education and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-2011
1. The Petitioner, who was working as a Superintendent in the D.A.V. Public School, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi („School), Respondent No. 3, has challenged in this writ petition an order dated 30th April 1998 placing him under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings. He also challenged an order dated 7th August 1998 issued by the School rejecting his allegation of bias against the Inquiry Officer („IO). 2. While directing notice to issue in this petition on 11th November 1998 an interim order was passed by this Court restraining the IO from making any final report. On the next date, i.e., 12th February 1999 this Court was informed that the IO had prepared a final report on 26th October 1998. On 25th February 1999 an order was issued by the Chairman of the School removing the Petitioner from service with immediate effect. The Petitioner filed CM No. 2530 of 1999 seeking stay of the operation of the order dated 25th February 1999. He also prayed for a direction to the Respon...
M/S Century Pulp and Paper and anr. Vs. M/S Shiv Ganga Paper
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-2011
1. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs states that he will file an amended memo of parties giving the name of plaintiff No. 1 as M/s Century Textiles and Industries Limited. The Registry will take the amended memo of parties on record. 2. This is a suit for recovery of Rs 1,90,07,000/-. Plaintiff No. 1 is a leading manufacturer of Paper and Pulp, whereas plaintiff No. 2 is one of its authorized dealers. Under an arrangement between the plaintiffs, plaintiff No. 1 used to execute the sale orders negotiated by plaintiff No. 2, by delivering the same to the purchaser, identified by plaintiff No. 2. The sale consideration used to be paid by the purchaser to either of the plaintiffs. The case of the plaintiffs is that in April, 2004, defendant No. 4 (whose name has since been deleted from the array of defendants) Shri Prashant Jhunjhunwala negotiated the Paper Rate and Supply Terms Agreement, on behalf of defendant No. 1 Shiv Ganga Paper Converters P. Ltd. for the year 2...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »