Delhi Court September 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.
Anjana Biloha and ors. Vs. R.K. JaIn and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2011
1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala House, New Delhi dated 03.08.1999 passed in Suit No.184 of 1994 titled as "Anjana Biloha and Others vs. R.K. Jain & Anr.", whereby a sum of ` 6,16,000/- was awarded to the appellants for the untimely demise of their bread-earner, Shri Shyam Biloha. 2. Brief facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are that the aforesaid Shri Shyam Biloha died as a result of a motor vehicular accident which took place on 23.02.1994. A Claim Petition claiming compensation in the sum of ` 35,00,000/- was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased, viz. the widow, mother and daughter of the deceased against the owner-cum-driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle. The learned Tribunal after concluding that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent No.1, held the appellants entitled to receive compensa...
Home Solutions Retails (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2011
1 In this batch of writ petitions preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the constitutional validity of Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1995 (for short „the 1995 Act) and Section 66 as amended by the Finance Act, 2010 (for brevity „the 2010 Act) is called in question. The matters were initially placed before a Division Bench wherein the learned counsel for the parties raised many a submission and regard being had to the nature of the cases, the Division Bench thought it appropriate that the controversy should be dwelled upon by a larger Bench. Thereafter, the matters have been placed before us. 2 For the sake of clarity and convenience, we shall advert to the facts adumbrated in W.P.(C) No.3398/2010 and deal with the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties in all the writ petitions as the issue is common to all. The petitioner, a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956, has taken commercial property / shops on rent ...
Tani Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2011
1. Petitioner got married to Sandeep Arora and the two fell apart. 2. Petitioner lodged a complaint with the police for alleged offences under Section 498A/406 IPC against her husband and his family members pursuant whereto an FIR stands registered. The family is facing trial. 3. Retaliation was expected. Indeed it was. 4. Sandeep Arora passed on information which obviously, he gathered about the petitioner, when they were married. Pursuant to a complaint filed by him the petitioner has been summoned to face trial for offences punishable under Section 420/465/467/468/471 IPC. 5. The incriminating evidence relied upon is an alleged birth certificate pertaining to the petitioner as per which her date of birth is 18.7.1975; which date of birth is recorded in the school record in which petitioner studied and was the date notified to CBSE when Roll No.6336921 was issued in the name of the petitioner. She failed in the examination. 6. The contrary date of birth was disclosed by the petitione...
Rajesh Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2011
1. The petitioner was appointed as a constable under Central Industrial Security Force on 23.06.1987 and posted to CISF Unit VSTPP Vidhyanagar, Madhya Pradesh. In the month of March 1996 a complaint was made against the petitioner to the Commandant, stating that on 20.3.1996, in a state of intoxication the petitioner abused and assaulted L/Nk.Dharamvir Singh Challia also referred to as DVS Challia. 2. Taking cognizance of the complaint and the fact that L/Nk. Dharamvir Singh Challia was hospitalized for 8 days, the Commandant issued a Memorandum of Charge listing 3 articles of charge against the petitioner which read as under:- CHARGE-I CISF No.874050118 Ct.Rajesh Kumar, on 20.3.96 consumed liquor and in the state of intoxication abused CISF No.8038054 LNK Dharambir Singh and disturbed peace in the unit lines. This above mentioned conduct of the member of force symbolizes/means gross indiscipline and misconduct. CHARGE-II CISF No.874050118 Ct.Rajesh Kumar on 20.3.96 at 2045 hrs in the ...
Shri Krishan Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2011
1. The petition impugns the appointment of the respondent no.3 Shri Mahesh Rangarajan as the Director of the respondent no.2 Nehru Memorial Museum and Library Society and further seeks a mandamus for selection / appointment of the Director of the respondent no.2 Society in accordance with the Rules of the respondent no.2 Society and after issuing an open advertisement and notifying the Employment Exchange regarding the vacancy. As on the date of filing of the writ petition, the respondent no.3 had not taken over charge of the post of Director (the term of earlier Director having not expired till then), the interim relief of restraining the respondent no.3 from assuming the post of Director was also claimed. 2. Notice of the petition and application for interim relief was issued. Pleadings have been completed and the hearing concluded on 8 th August, 2011. Since the respondent no.3 was to assume charge of the post w.e.f. 9th August, 2011, while reserving judgment it was directed that th...
Surender Pathak Vs. Maya Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2011
1. In the complaint filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, the respondent has alleged against the petitioner that after her late husband Sh.Harpal Singh died, she and the petitioner got married on 28.1.1992 and since then had lived as husband and wife at House No.B-115, Gali No.6, Subhash Vihar, Ghonda, Delhi-110053, which house she claims is the shared household and makes a grievance that on 30.9.2008, the petitioner threw her out and started living with another lady named Sangeeta. 2. The petitioner has been summoned in the said complaint and raises the issue in the instant petition that the summoning order as also the complaint be quashed on the premise that the complaint is motivated. He alleges that petitioner and the respondent are not husband and wife. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent annexed no proof with her complaint of being married to the petitioner. Learned counsel states that if on mere assertions...
State Vs. Rakesh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2011
1. The State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 09.08.2010 in Sessions Case No.09/07 whereby Respondent Rakesh (the accused) was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC. The facts of the case can be extracted from paras 2 to 7 of the impugned judgment which are reproduced as under: "2. It would be apposite to take note briefly of the prosecution case, at the outset. The incident involving the alleged murder of Kiran wife of accused (hereinafter "the deceased") is shown to have come to the notice of police on telephone information given on phone about a quarrel taking place in House No.172, Sangam Colony, Gopal Dairy, which was recorded vide DD No.7/A at 03.24 hours on 11.10.2006 (Ex.PW3/A) which was entrusted to ASI Rajinder Singh (PW-10), who was on night emergency duty. It is stated that the said information was also made over to SI Jitender (PW-13), who was on night patrolling duty. It is alleged that the quarrel referred to, in the said DD entry, had taken place...
Virendra Sahlot Vs. Gurvir Inder Singh and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2011
1. By this order, I shall dispose of the present application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI, Rule 16 read with Section 151 CPC praying that the written statement to the amended plaint, filed by defendant No.2 be struck off from the record. 2. The present suit is for specific performance of the Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement to Sell dated 13.09.2005 for sale of immoveable property. After the institution of this suit on 20.10.2005, the parties entered into a compromise. Thereafter, the agreement dated 13.09.2005 was amended and an agreement in continuation of the earlier agreement titled as "Amended Memorandum of Understanding" was executed on 28.03.2006. 3. It is stated by the plaintiff that as per the terms of the agreement to sell, the plaintiff had filed an application No.2775 of 2007 under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint, to incorporate therein the subsequent agreement wherein the sale consideration was enhanced. The said application of the plaint...
Gokal Chand Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2011
1. The writ petition had reached for hearing on 9.8.2011 and noting that none appeared for the parties, we had directed court notice be issued to the parties by ordinary post intimating that the writ petition would be heard in the 'AFTER NOTICE MISCELLANEOUS MATTER' category for final hearing on 23.09.2011 i.e. today. 2. Multifarious reliefs have been claimed in the writ petition. The same is self evident from the prayer. We reproduce the same as under: (a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents in general and respondent No. 3 in particular, to forthwith release the following retiral dues of the petitioner namely: i) Difference of pay with increments during the suspension period from 27.12.1986 to 2.4.1992 with interest @ 18% per annum; ii) Increased House Rent Allowance from 1.1.1986 onwards as per the IVth Pay Commission's recommendations; with interest @ 18% per annum; iii) Amount of provident fund lying deposited in P.F...
Mohd Islam Vs. State, Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 15.11.2010 in NDPS case N No.18/2004 ID No.02403R0197862009 FIR No.72/2009 P.S. Crime Branch under Section 21/29 NDPS Act and consequent order on sentence dated 16.11.2010 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 21(b) of NDPS act and sentenced to undergo RI for the period of 02 year and 06 months and also to pay fine of `20,000/-, in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. The appellant was sent for trial on the allegations that on 21.05.2009 at 12:25 pm near Tivoli Garden, Chhatarpur, he was apprehended and searched on the basis of secret information and he was found in illegal possession of 260 gm of smack. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, prosecution examined 11 witnesses in all. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he denied the prosecution story. On consideration of the evidence, lea...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »