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.
Davinder Aggarwal Vs. Bennett Colemn and Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2011
1. The appellant has challenged the judgment and decree whereby the learned Trial Court has dismissed the appellant's suit for recovery of `4,59,070/- and mandatory injunction. 2. There is a delay of 571 days in filing of the appeal. The appellant is seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal on the ground that he filed a review application before the learned Trial Court on 24th July, 2008, which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 21st May, 2010. It is stated that the appellant was under the bonafide belief that the review application would be allowed and, therefore, he did not file the appeal. This case does not fall within Section 14 of the Limitation Act as the appellant was well aware that the appropriate remedy against the impugned judgment and decree was the appeal. Even if the period during which the appellant was pursuing the review application is excluded, there is a delay of 145 days. There is no explanation for the delay of 145 days. As such, no case for c...
K.S. Kardam Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2011
1. An order dated 22nd February 1989 passed by the Assistant General Manager (P) of the Syndicate Bank („Bank) removing the Petitioner from service has been challenged in this writ petition. By an amendment to the writ petition, the Petitioner has further challenged an order dated 4th July 1989 passed by the General Manager of the Bank dismissing the Petitioners review petition. The challenge to the order dated 22nd January 1991 passed by the Estate Officer evicting the Petitioner from House No. 320, Basant Enclave, New Delhi has been rendered infructuous with the Petitioner having vacated the said premises. 2. While issuing Rule on 1st March 1994, this Court permitted the Petitioner to urge the additional grounds as indicated in CM Application No. 4458 of 1993. Factual background 3. The Petitioner was working as an Assistant Manager at the Branch of the Bank at Vasant Vihar in New Delhi between 7th July 1982 and 11th September 1984. He had been transferred to Delhi at his reques...
Const.Amar Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2011
1. Charge for which inquiry was conducted against the petitioner reads as under:- "Statement of Article of Charge framed against No.904523362 Constable Amar Singh (under suspension) of CISF Unit HWP (M). Article of Charge No.1 An act of gross indiscipline, misconduct and disobedience of orders, in that No.904523362 Constable Amar Singh (u/s) of CISF Unit, HWP(M) deployed at Mallaram Camp left the Camp without proper permission and trespassed the family quarter No.A-2-3/3 of Shri Jhan Mohammed, an employee at HWP(M) Colony approximately 12 km away from his Company Camp at about 1125 hrs. on 27.8.95 with mala-fide intentions. Hence the charge. Article of Charge No.2 An act of gross indiscipline and unbecoming of a member of an Armed Force of the Union, in that No.904523362 Constable Amar Singh (u/s) indulged in unwarranted activities thereby effecting the reputation of the Force amongst the civilians of the colony. Hence the charge." 2. Only 2 witnesses, Insp.P.Baa and Inspector B.Lakra ...
Devender Bhardwaj Vs. Saroj Bhardwaj
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2011
1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the learned Trial Court whereby the learned Trial Court has awarded maintenance @Rs.9,000/- per month to the respondent for herself and `7,000/- per month for her minor daughter. The petitioner is seeking reduction of the maintenance amount. 2. The parties were married on 30th January, 2000 and they stayed together till 12th December, 2007. The petitioner is running a chemist shop and his income as per the last Income Tax Return is `30,385/- per month including the rental income of `15,000/- per month. The petitioner has received a sum of `6,93,720/- as compensation for agricultural land. The petitioner and his family owns 3.25 acres of agricultural land in Old Faridabad. The petitioner has a flat in Sukhdev Vihar and a house in Sarai Jullena. The petitioner owns a Tata Safari Car and two credit cards. Taking all the aforesaid facts into consideration, the learned Trial Court presumed the income of the petitioner to be not less than `50,000...
Rohit Shekhar Vs. Shri Narayan Dutt Tiwari and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2011
1. The present application displays a blatant refusal by a party to the litigation to comply with the court direction made in accordance with law to furnish a blood sample for DNA testing which would enable authoritative adjudication on the real issue in the matter. For this purpose, the defendant no. 1 has filed IA No. 10394/2011 dated 30th May, 2011 seeking the following prayers :- "(a) direct the plaintiff or the learned Deputy Registrar of this court or any other authority or officer not to pressurize, coerce, compel or force the petitioner in any manner to involuntarily provide blood and/or tissue sample for DNA analysis. (b) Direct that till the abovementioned prayer is finally considered by this court, the order of the learned Deputy Registrar directing the applicant to deliver blood sample on 1.6.2011 may kindly be deferred or kept in abeyance." 2. Before considering the application on the merits of the submissions made before this court, it is necessary to consider certain ess...
R.P.Keshari Vs. Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2011
1. The petitioner, an erstwhile consultant of National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Limited (NAFED)/R-2, in the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to impugn the show cause notice dated 15.07.2010 issued by R-1. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a consultant by R-2 for rendering consultancy services in connection with the tie up business of the said respondent on a monthly lump sum remuneration of Rs.15,000/- with other perquisites as per letter dated 22.07.2005 initially for a period of three months and continued till 30.04.2008 when he ceased to be the consultant. The nature of work of the petitioner, as contained in the letter dated 22.07.2005, is as under: "1. He will render consultancy services in connection with the work relating to tie up business viz. commodity financing, collateral security services, risk coverage measures, client rating, analysis of balance sheets of the clients and possibility of structu...
Sudhir Kr. Gautam and anr. Vs. Udayan Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2011
1. By way of this appeal, the appellants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased Ms. Manushi Gautam seek enhancement of the compensation awarded to them by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, New Delhi, by its judgment and award dated 3.4.2007 passed in Suit No.169/2007 titled as "Sudhir Kumar Gautam and Anr. v. Udayan Kumar and Ors." 2. The facts relevant for the decision of the present appeal are that on 06.05.2004, Ms. Manushi Gautam (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was travelling as a pillion rider on the motorcycle driven by her brother. The said motorcycle, when it was in a stationary position at the red light traffic signal, was hit by an Army Bus bearing No. 03-P01-3514K from behind. As a result of this impact, Ms. Manushi Gautam received fatal injuries to which she succumbed on the spot. A criminal case bearing FIR No.105/04 was registered at Police Station Chanakyapuri, New Delhi against respondent No.1-the driver of the offending Army Bus. A Claim Peti...
Suresh Pal Singh and ors. Vs. State Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2011
1. Issue notice. 2. Ms.Ritu Gauba, learned APP for State/Respondent No.1 and Mr.Abhishek Kaushik, learned counsel for R-2 to R-6 accepts notice. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR No.387/2009 dated 14.12.2009 a case under Section 308/427/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2 at police station Vijay Vihar, Delhi. 4. Further submitted that compromise has been taken place with the intervention of the common friends and relatives and members of the locality on 20.07.2011 and the respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the case against the petitioners. 5. Respondent No.2 is present in person, who has been duly identified by ASI Pradeep Kumar, police station Vijay Vihar. Respondent No.2 submits that he has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR and he does not wish to pursue the case further against the petitioners, therefore, the FIR may be quashed. 6. Ms.Ritu Gauba, learned APP for State submits...
T.R. Bhagat Vs. Director General of Central Excise and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2011
1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the complaint under Section 9 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 and the proceedings arising out of the same in the complaint case titled `Shri S.N.Malhotra, Superintendent of Central Excise(Anti-Evasion) v. M/s Office Machines Pvt. Ltd and others', qua the petitioner. 2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that respondent No.1 through Sh.S.N. Malhotra, Superintendent, Central Excise (Anti-Evasion) filed a complaint under Section 9 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944(now known as Central Excise Act, 1944) alleging that the petitioner has indulged in evading Central Excise Duty amounting to `4,20,234,52 by clandestinely removing/selling the office Machiness. As per the allegations in the complaint, petitioner T.R. Bhagat was Director of M/s Office Machines Pvt. Ltd. As such, he is sought to be prosecuted vicariously for the offences punishable under Section 9(1)(a), 9(1)(b) an...
Pati Ram Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2011
1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.08.2010 and the order of sentence dated 20.08.2010 in Sessions Case No.52/2009 whereby the Appellant Pati Ram was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302/364/201 Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of ` 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC or in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 3 months; sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and to pay a fine of ` 500/- or in default to undergo SI for two months for the offence punishable under Section 364 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of ` 500/- or in default to undergo SI for two months for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. The sentences were to run concurrently. 2. Initially, five persons i.e. Pati Ram (the Appellant), Brijesh Kumar, Betal Singh, Mani Ram and Ram Niwas were arraigned as accused. Accused Betal Singh, Mani Ram and Ram Niwas were...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »