Delhi Court September 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.
Ashok Shankarrao Chavan Vs. Madhavrao Kinhalkar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2011
1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legal substantiality of the order dated 2nd April, 2001 passed by the Election Commission of India (for short „the Commission) wherein the Commission has expressed the view that it has jurisdiction under Section 10A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for brevity „the 1951 Act) to embark upon the issue of alleged incorrectness or falsity of the return of election expenses maintained by the respondent, a candidate in election, under Section 77(1) and 77(2) lodged by him in exercise of power under Section 78 of the 1951 Act. 2. As a pure question of law arises, we shall refer in brief to the facts of the case. The petitioner was a returned candidate at general election to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly held in September-October, 2009 from 85, Bhokar Assembly constituency and at that point of time he was the Chief Minister o...
Satish Chander Vs. C.B.i.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2011
1. The appellant who is the accused in the instant case has preferred an appeal under section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as P.C. Act) read with section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) against the judgment dated 10.02.2003 and the sentence dated 13.02.2003 passed by the Special Judge, Delhi wherein the accused has been convicted under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and accordingly, directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years on each count. In addition, a fine of Rs.5,000/- has been imposed on each count. The sentence of imprisonment is to run concurrently while the other part pertaining to payment of fine is to run sequentially. In the event of default in payment of fine, the accused will be required to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of four months on each count. The fine has already been paid by the accused. A receipt of deposit dated 13.02.2003 evidenc...
Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Central Public Information Officer and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2011
1. These three connected intra court appeals assail the decision dated 30th July, 2010, disposing of the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6614/2008 filed by the appellant and the Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 8999/2008 and 8407/2009, filed by the Union of India. Some interim applications have also been disposed of by the impugned decision. 2. Facts of the case need not be stated in detail as the appellant has primarily questioned and challenged the interpretation of Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Act, for short) in the impugned decision. In these circumstances, we refrain and do not go into the other aspects especially as by the impugned decision the matter has been remitted to Central Information Commission. 3. The Act in question was enacted on 15th June, 2005 for setting out a practical regime to enable citizens to secure access to information with the "public authorities" in order to ensure transparency and accountability. The Act ensures greater and more effective access ...
SachIn Bansal @ Anshu and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2011
1. These are the two regular bail applications bearing Nos.1512/2009 & 1012/2011, filed by Sachin Bansal and another by Narender Mann respectively. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case against the petitioners/accused persons is that on 21.03.2006 at about 4:30 pm a call bell was given at the residence of the deceased, S.N.Gupta. Smt.Kamla Devi, the wife of the deceased S.N. Gupta attended the call. At the main door, she found a person with beard, aged about 25-30 years, wearing spectacles & black cap, having a bag and posing himself to be a Courier boy. He informed her that he had brought a letter for S.N.Gupta, the deceased. As the Courier Boy is stated to have alleged that the delivery of the letter would be made to Sh.S.N.Gupta only, Smt.Kamla Devi, complainant went inside the house and informed her husband about the courier. S.N. Gupta went to the door to collect the letter, however, in the meantime, the complainant who was in the kitchen heard 2-3 gunshots. It transpire...
Star India Private Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2011
1. Star India Private Limited („SIPL) challenges an order dated 27th November 2009, issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting („I&B Ministry), Government of India, administering a warning to Star Plus Channel („SPC) in exercise of powers under Section 20 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 („CTNR Act) to strictly adhere to the Programme Code („PC) in terms of Sections 5 CTNR Act read with Rule 6 of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 („CTN Rules). The warning was with reference to the telecast/re-telecast by the SPC of a program titled „Sach Ka Saamna („SKS) on 17th and 21st July 2009. Background facts 2. SIPL states that it is engaged in the business of producing and supplying content to various channels operated under the name „STAR including SPC. SPC is stated to have a wide viewership. The television programme SKS is stated to have been adapted from a widely watched international show t...
Sunil Kumar and anr. Vs. Inder Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2011
1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of `1,10,642/- has been awarded to the appellant. The appellant seeks enhancement of the award amount. 2. On 21st January, 1993 at about 3:30 PM, the appellant was travelling as a pillion rider on a two wheeler scooter bearing No.DL-2SC-8258 when the said scooter was hit from behind by a truck No.DDL-6696. The appellant fell down and sustained serious/grievous injuries including fracture of right leg. The bone of his right leg entered in the stomach and both the testicles as well as the penis were damaged. 3. The Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of `4,000/- towards medical expenditure, `6,642/- towards loss of earning for six months and `1,00,000 for disability for reproduction, mental torture and pain to the appellant. The total compensation awarded is `1,10,642/-. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant urged the following grounds at the time of the hearing of this appeal:- (i) The compensation for l...
Mohd Irfan Gani Vs. Uoi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2011
1. The petition impugns the order dated 10th May, 2010 of the Appellate Authority under Section 11 of the Passports Act, 1967 dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 16th March, 2009 of the Embassy of India at Rabat, Morocco revoking the Passport No.G4546002 earlier issued to the petitioner and valid from 10 th April, 2008 till 19th April, 2018. 2. The petitioner stationed at Morocco had applied to the Embassy of India at Rabat for a duplicate passport claiming that his original passport had been lost. During the pendency of the said application, it was realized that the brother of the petitioner namely Mr. Rouf Ahmed Ghani had travelled on the said passport. A notice dated 10 th February, 2009 was thus issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why the passport earlier issued to him and reportedly lost should not be impounded/revoked for contravention of the condition that the passport holder shall not allow anybody else into custody/possession ther...
Madhu Kora Vs. Election Commission of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2011
By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: - "A. Issue appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the notices dated 07.10.2010 and 22.01.2011 issued by the Election Commission of India and declaring that the said notices to be ultra-vires and without any authority of law and/or B. Issue a writ of prohibition restraining the Election Commission from assuming the jurisdiction to decide an issue regarding excessive expenditure in violation of Section 77(3) of the Representation of People Act being the foundation for an action under Section 10A. C. Or in the alternate hold that the learned Election Commission has no jurisdiction to decide on the issue of alleged falsity of accounts. D. Hold and declare that Section 10A is ultra-vires Article 329(b) of the Constitution, vis-à-vis returned candidates. E. Pass such further order/s as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justic...
All India Tent Dealers Welfare Organization Vs. Union of India and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2011
1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: - "(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari that Section 135(A)(10) of the Finance Act, 2007 be quashed as unconstitutional. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari that erection of a Pandal/Shamiana for marriage is in furtherance of religious ceremonies, rites and rituals which are to be performed for the religious function and should not be considered as social function for the purpose of service tax. (c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari that no Service Tax be levied on erection of Pandal/Shamiana for Hindu marriage as it is providing the said activities/services to a religious function and by quashing the said amendments as unconstitutional. (d) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari restraining the respondents from levying and/or collecting...
Bhupinder Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2011
1. Expressing doubt with regard to the correctness of the decisions in Harpal Singh v. State (Criminal Appeal No.362/2008 decided on 25th May, 2010) and Satyawan v. State (Criminal Appeal No.34/2001 decided on 9th July, 2009) wherein the two Division Benches had ignored the part of the report of the handwriting expert on the ground that the investigating officer had taken specimen handwriting in violation of the provisions of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 (for brevity „the 1920 Act), the Division Bench that was hearing the Criminal Appeals No.1005/2008 [Bhupender Singh v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)] and No. 408/2007 [Drojan Singh v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)], referred the following question to be adjudicated by a larger Bench: "Whether the sample finger prints given by the accused during investigation under section 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 without prior permission of the Magistrate under Section 5 of the Act will be admissible or ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »