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.
Prince Sagar Vs. N.C.T. of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2011
1. Vide this application the petitioner has sought restoration of the petition, which was dismissed for non- prosecution vide order dated 13.12.2010. It has been recorded in the said order that even on the second call no one appeared for the petitioner and even on last two consecutive dates petitioner remained unrepresented. 2. The present petition is restored subject to cost of `15,000/- to be paid in favour of 'Welfare Fund for Children and Destitute Women' at Nirmal Chhaya, Jail Road, Tihar, New Delhi, within two weeks from today. Proof of the same be placed on record. Crl.M.C.2527/2007 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The instant petition is being filed on the basis of compromise deed arrived at Amritsar and the same was filed in the Court of Vivek Puri, Ld. ADJ, at Amritsar. 3. As per clause 4 of the said compromise, it is recorded as under : "That the plaintiff undertakes to withdraw the above-said case and contempt proceedings pen...
Kamla Devi Vs. Dharmanand Pandey (Decd) Thru Lrs
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2011
1. This revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958(hereinafter called „the Act) has been filed by the petitioner-tenant against the order dated 03-12-2010 passed by the Additional Rent Controller whereby her application for leave to contest the eviction petition filed against her by her landlord, who died during the pendency of the eviction petition, under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act to have the possession of one shop in property bearing no. B-1C-164, Chander Lok, Main Mandoli Road, Delhi-110093(hereinafter to be referred as the „tenanted shop) on the ground that he required the same bona fide for his residence and that of his dependant family members has been dismissed and she has been ordered to vacate the tenanted shop. 2. The deceased-landlord claimed in his eviction petition that he was earlier the owner of property bearing no. B-1C-164, Chander Lok, Main Mandoli Road, Delhi-93, of which the tenanted shop was a part, but in the year 2002...
Shankar Lal Vs. State and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2011
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR No.119/1995 dated 23.02.1995 a case under Section 498A/406 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioner on complaint of respondent No.2 at police station Dr.Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi. 2. Further submits that pursuant to settlement dated 30.07.2011 petitioner and respondent No.2 have amicably settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR and they are living together as husband and wife since the year 2004. 3. Respondent No.2 present in person. The photographs of respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 are affixed at the compromise deed at page No.24 of petition. In addition to that, she has also produced the photocopy of voter identity card bearing No.03/034/168498 which stands in her name. Photocopy so produced is taken on the record. 4. Respondent No.2 submits that she has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR & does not wish to pursue the case against petitioner further as she is residing happily with ...
Rani Soni @ Joginder Kaur Soni and ors Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2011
1. Vide the instant petition the petitioners have assailed the impugned order dated 21.01.2011 passed by ld. MM, South Delhi whereby ld. MM has passed the order as under : "Accused are stated to be on police/court. I have perused the challan, statements of witnesses and the documents filed on record. Prima facie there is sufficient material on record to proceed with the case against all the accused persons namely Navdeep Soni, Rani Soni, Sandeep Soni and Dolly Soni. Accordingly, the cognizance is taken against all the accused persons u/s 498A/406/34 IPC. Summons be issued to he accused persons and notice to surety through IO for 31.03.2011." 2. Ld. counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were put in column 2 in the report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the ld. Magistrate. 3. Further submits that Navdeep Soni being the husband, the charge-sheet was filed against him. Rest of three accused namely, Rani Soni, Sandeep Soni and Dolly Soni were put in column 2. Ld. MM ha...
Ex.L/Nk. Fateh Singh Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2011
1. Working as a Constable with BSF, Fateh Singh i.e. the petitioner was granted 45 days' leave commencing from 5.4.1990, requiring him to join on 21.05.1990 since leave period would be over on 20.05.1990. He did not join back. Two letters, dated 19.5.1990 and 20.6.1990 were received by the department in which he sought leave to be extended informing that he had fallen sick. No medical papers were enclosed therewith, pleadings to the contrary in the writ petition, are without any proof of any medical papers being sent along with the two letters and for which we would highlight that in neither letter there is a mention nor there is a mention of any certificate being enclosed; none is even referred to. 2. On 3.7.1990 petitioner sent a letter informing that due to poor health his resignation be accepted. 3. The department wrote in response that this was no way to resign. Procedures required Fateh Singh to join service and then tender a proper resignation as per rules. 4. Petitioner did not...
Satish Rana Vs. Cbi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2011
1. Satish Rana, petitioner in Crl.M.C. 1543/2009; Vinay Tyagi, Atul Tyagi, Neeraj Kumar, Sudhir Kumar, Upender Singh, Prem Pal Singh & Naresh Pal, petitioners in Crl.M.C. 1544/2009; Govt. of NCT of Delhi, petitioner in Crl.M.C. 1881/2009 and Nagender, Satender Singh, Rustam Ahmed, Hariom and Raj Kumar, petitioners in Crl.M.C. 3695/2009, vide their respective petitions have sought quashing of FIR R.C.No. 2(S)/2002/SIC-IV-New Delhi under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 218/302/201 IPC and Sections 218/302/301/34 IPC and also the order dated 06.08.2008 passed by learned C.M.M., Delhi and all proceedings emanating therefrom. The petitioners have also sought quashing of the order dated 14.05.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Criminal Revision No. 07/2009. 2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for disposal of the above petitions are that High Court of Delhi in Criminal Writ Petition No. 70/2002 titled „Chander Bhan Singh v. State & Ors. directed the...
Lakshmi Chand Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2011
1. The instant Writ Petition is preferred against the Order dated 13th February, 2002 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as „Tribunal) allowed the O.A. No.2054/1998 filed on behalf of the Respondent No.5, Sh. Jagan Nath. The impugned Order, in effect, directed the reversion of the Petitioner from the post of Assistant Store Keeper (ASK) to his substantive post (in this case „Lascar) within two months of receipt of the Order dated 13th February, 2002. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to filing of the present Writ Petition are adumbrated as below: (a) In the year 1984, the Petitioner herein was appointed to the post of Lascar in the office of the Respondents (Indian Air Force). The next promotion was to the post of ASK. (b) Subsequently, the Respondents (Indian Air Force) vide advertisement dated 21st April, 1990 released one vacancy of ASK, Group C for being filled by Group „D employees on the basis of selection throu...
Gayatri Devi Vs. State and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2011
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 21.04.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the respondent No.2/accused has been admitted on bail. 2. Before adverting to the petition, let briefly recapitulate the facts. 3. A case under Section 498A/304B Indian Penal Code was registered against respondent No.2 and his relatives vide FIR No.324/2009 dated 31.12.2009 at police station Janakpuri, New Delhi. 4. Initially, respondent No.2 moved an anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court which was rejected vide order dated 20.01.2010. 5. Being aggrieved, he approached this Court and vide order dated 10.03.2010, the petition of respondent No.2 was rejected. 6. Thereafter, respondent No.2 moved Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court and vide order dated 05.04.2010, respondent No.2 was granted interim relief. 7. Vide order dated 07.01.2011, during the pendency of the said SLP of respondent No.2, Hon'ble Supreme Court wanted t...
Anil Verman Vs. Raheja Developers Private Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2011
1. The appellant filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction on the Original Side of this Court, which was numbered as Suit No.1377/1995, making the following prayers: "(a) pass a decree of Specific Performance in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in respect of an apartment in Neelanchal Apartments, Economy Type III, Pine Gardens, Nainital, developed by the defendant, together with the rights to the use of all common passages, entrances, terrace and any other common facilities and easements; (b) by means of the said decree of Specific Performance, the defendant be directed to: i. to apply and obtain all permissions from all Authorities, including under Income Tax Act, that will render marketable, free from all encumbrances, the title of the said property, which is the subject-matter of the present suit in favour of the plaintiff; ii. intimate to the plaintiff of having obtained necessary permission by means of registered letters/notice. iii. to execut...
Chandan Singh Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2011
1. Briefly noted, with respect to the testimony of Ex.HC Puran Singh who had superannuated as a Head Constable from BSF, the petitioner and Nk.Raj Kumar became friendly with him and started visiting his house in spite of he i.e. Ex.HC Puran Singh cautioning them that being out of bound area, the two should not visit his house. On 30.6.1997 when he i.e. Ex.HC Puran Singh, his wife and children were sleeping, his wife heard sound from the adjoining room where-from business of selling tea was being carried out by him and as he entered the room he saw a man lying on the floor, who he struck with a stick and as the person screamed, from the voice he could recognize that it was Nk.Raj Kumar. At that very moment somebody poked a bamboo from the door and called out the name of Nk.Raj Kumar, he could recognize from the voice that the said person calling for Nk.Raj Kumar was Chandan Singh, the petitioner. 2. Nk.Raj Kumar and the petitioner Chandan Singh were subjected to a Security Force Court T...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »