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.
Cr Dalal Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-2011
1. O.A.No.644/2010 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Armed Forces Tribunal vide impugned order dated 6.5.2011. 2. As per the original application filed by the petitioner, he was praying that grading of „7 in the ACR for the period September 2001 to August 2002 be set aside; order dated 17.3.2010 rejecting statutory complaint filed by the petitioner be set aside and petitioners non empanelment for promotion as a Brigadier be quashed with a direction that petitioners entitlement for promotion to the rank of Brigadier be considered afresh. 3. The Tribunal has noted that the petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Army as a 2nd Lieutenant on 17.12.1983 and was allotted the Army Supply Corps. The petitioner earned various promotions from time to time and it was the case of the petitioner that for the period September 2001 to August 2002, there was an aberration in his ACR inasmuch as „7 marks were allotted to him under the heading „Effectiveness in Traini...
State Vs. Pankaj Chaudhary
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-2011
1. The State in Criminal Appeal No.813/2011 and the Appellant ( hereafter "Pankaj Chaudhary") in Criminal Appeal No.993/2009 impugn the judgment dated 12.11.2009 and the order on sentence dated 16.11.2009 whereby the latter, (i.e Pankaj Chaudhary) was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 377 read with Section 511 Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Appellant was further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. He was awarded various terms of imprisonment for different offences. 2. The State is aggrieved by the impugned judgment on the ground that the Trial Court fell into error and committed a grave illegality in holding that since the hymen of the prosecutrix was intact; rape could not have been committed. It is urged on behalf of the State that the slightest penetration is sufficient to constitute the offence of rape and in cases of a small girl the hymen is situated deeply because of the rotundity of the labia majora on account of excessive fat con...
Smt. Chander Kanta Malhotra and ors Vs. Dda and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-2011
1. The writ petition impugns the letter dated 5th July, 2011 of the respondent DDA refusing to include the names of the petitioners in the allotment made of Plot Nos.C-1, 2, 25 to 27, Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Phase-I, Delhi in favour of the respondents no.4 to 9. 2. One Sh. Inder Raj kakkar was entitled to allotment of alternative plots from the respondents no.1 to 3 DDA. However before the allotment could be made, the said Sh. Inder Raj Kakkar died on 2nd April, 1982 leaving his wife as his only natural heir; he and his wife being issueless. 3. The wife of Sh. Inder Raj Kakkar namely Smt. Savitri Kakkar also died issueless and intestate on 10th August, 1986. No allotment could be made in her life time also and respondent DDA has made the allotment now, only in June, 2011. The respondents no.4 to 9 in whose favour the allotment has been made are the legal heirs of the brothers/sisters of Sh. Inder Raj Kakkar. 4. The three petitioners are the legal heirs of Sh. Ishwar Das Kakkar ano...
Ex.Ct. Satyender Kumar Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-2011
1. The petitioner, a constable with BSF, was granted 45 days earned leave on stated grounds of his mother being ill w.e.f. 14.9.1994 to 28.10.94. 2. Required to rejoin on 29.10.1994, petitioner did not rejoin duty. A call up letter was sent at his residential permanent address on 12.11.1994. Petitioner did not respond. 3. An Apprehension Roll was issued with a request to the Superintendent of Police, District Sonepat, since the petitioner resided in a village in District Sonepat, to apprehend the petitioner and hand him over to the nearest battalion Head Quarter. The Apprehension Roll was returned unexecuted with the report that the family members and fellow villagers informed the police that the petitioner had left his house to join his unit at Kupwarah, Jammu and Kashmir. 4. A Court of enquiry was ordered which opined that in the absence of any communication received from the petitioner, his absconding amounted to willful absenting from discharging duties i.e. unauthorized absence w...
M/S. Mohan Construction Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-2011
1. The appellant/contractor was awarded the work of construction of 560 MIG houses at Pitampura, Pocket A(P) including internal development by the DDA/respondent No.1 vide contract agreement No.3/EE/N.D.I/85-86. The agreement contained an arbitration clause, being clause No.25. The appellant/contractor claimed that it concluded the work satisfactorily though the time period for completion of the project was greatly extended on account of delay & laches on the part of respondent No.1 and thus had various claims against respondent No.1. On the arbitration clause being invoked, disputes were referred to the sole arbitration of Mr. R.C. Malhotra vide letter dated 20.6.1990. Subsequently, the DDA also sought reference of certain counter claims which were also referred to the arbitrator vide letter dated 30.04.1992 and the appellant contractor's additional claims were also referred vide letter dated 30.06.1992. 2. It may be noticed that as per the original award of work dated 12.3.1985 t...
Veer Mahendra Prakash Singh Vs. the Management of Sharda Devi Sanskrit ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-2011
1. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as an Assistant Teacher with the respondent no.1 Sharda Devi Sanskrit Vidhyapeeth, Darya Ganj on 12th April, 1999, for teaching Hindi and Sanskrit to Classes 6th to 10th; that his services were regularized on 7th August, 2000; that in the seniority list of the Assistant Teachers drawn up on 26 th November, 2001, his name figured at serial no. 4; that his salary was not paid for the period 12th April, 1999 to 30th June, 2000 inspite of demand therefor in the letters dated 10th March, 2005, 15th January, 2007 and 26th July, 2007; that he was not allowed inspection of the annual audited account of the school for the years 1998 to 2001 inspite of demand; that he was declared surplus in the respondent no.1 school vide order dated 26th February, 2008 of respondent no.2 Directorate of Education and which order also directed him to report at Rani Dutta Arya Vidyalaya, Darya Ganj; that he so reported for duty to Rani Dutta Arya Vidyalaya, Darya Ga...
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-ix. Vs. M/S Monoflex India P. Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2011
1. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi-IX has filed the present intra-Court appeal under the Letters Patent Act and has assailed the decision dated 22nd August, 2003 allowing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3736/2001 filed by Monoflex India (Pvt.) Limited, the respondent No. 1 herein. The second respondent to the present appeal is the Delhi Development Authority. 2. The appeal was admitted to hearing on 24th November, 2003 and an interim order was passed staying operation of the impugned decision. After hearing on 21st February, 2011, the matter was relisted on 26th April, 2011 as some doubts had cropped up. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 6th May, 2011 and the counsel for the respondent No. 1 was granted time to file an affidavit impleading auction purchasers as co-respondents. On 25th July, 2011, a copy of the perpetual sub-lease deed dated 10th January, 1973 was placed on record. The said document is relevant and was referred to by the learned single judge but was not previously on rec...
NaraIn Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2011
1. The petitioner seeks mandamus for allotment of residential plot in lieu of land acquired in Village-Nangal Devat. 2. The land in Village Nangal Devat was acquired for expansion and development of the Indira Gandhi International Airport. The said acquisition was challenged in W.P.(C) No.481/1982. However on 2nd August, 2001 the petitioners therein gave up the challenge to the acquisition and confined the relief to rehabilitation at an alternative place, of persons whose land had been acquired. On the assurance of the counsel for the Airports Authority of India (AAI) that such rehabilitation was under consideration, the writ petition was disposed of. 3. However several applications/objections came to be filed even after disposal of W.P.(C) No.481/1982 and which were disposed of vide order dated 18th May, 2005 laying down certain guidelines/criteria for allotment of alternative land. 4. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that though his case for allotment of alternative plot was...
M/S Century Aluminium Manufactring Co Ltd Vs. M/S Goodpal Industry Lim ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2011
1. This is a suit for recovery of damages and injunctions. It is alleged in the plaint that defendant No. 1, which is a Chinese company, is carrying business in India through defendant No. 2, who is its Indian agent. It is further alleged that defendant No.2, on behalf of defendant No. 1 sent an Indent of the contract for and on behalf of defendant No. 1, followed by the sales confirmation issued by defendant No. 1. It is also alleged that on receipt of the offer, the plaintiff placed a purchase contract on defendants No. 1 and 2. On taking delivery of the material sent in three containers of 24 MT each, the plaintiff discovered that the goods were defective and were not as per specifications. The plaintiff informed defendants No. 1 and 2 in this regard and their representatives visited the factory of the plaintiff to verify the complaint and assured their full co-operation. The sample was sent to an independent lab M/s Sunbeam Auto Ltd., which submitted its report confirming that the ...
Dr. Gurusewa Singh Pabla Vs. Uoi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-2011
1. The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 8.07.1992 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in LAC No. 55/1985 whereby the market value of the land of the appellant in village Yakutpur, which was acquired by the Government for construction of Indoor Electrical Sub-Station pursuant to the notification dated 23rd December, 1967 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and award No. 47/1970-71 was enhanced from Rs.72/- per sq. yd. as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector to Rs.80/- per sq. yd. 2. The appellant was, however, not satisfied with the market value of his plot of land in village Yakutpur, which area according to the counsel for the appellant is a posh area now known as Kailash Colony, determined by the learned Reference Court and so he approached this Court by filing the present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act and has claimed fixation of the market value of his land @ Rs 500/- per sq.yd. 3. Mr. Inder Singh, learned counsel for t...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »