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.
Tinku Ram Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2011
1. The Appellant, Tinku Ram impugns a judgment and order dated 14.12.2010 in S.C. No. 127/2010 by which he was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302/324 IPC. For the offence under Section 302 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and for the offence under Section 324 IPC, the Appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. 2. The prosecution case is that on 10.06.2002, at about 10:55 PM on receipt of DD No. 31 Ex.PW-2/A, SI Parveen Kumar (PW-18) along with Constable Madan Kumar (PW-9) went to Laxmi Vihar, Prem Nagar-III where they were informed that the injured was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital. PW-9 remained at the spot while PW-18 along with Constable Shamsher (PW-10) reached the hospital; they received the MLC of the deceased in which he was declared brought dead. PW-18 met Sadan Kumar Mehto (PW-7, eye-witness) who led to the arrest of the Appellant Tinku Ram. PW-7 informed PW-18 that the Appellant had suspected that R...
M/S Batliwala and Karani and anr. Vs. Lalit Mohan JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2011
1. Review is sought of the judgment dated 11.03.2011 insofar as the same in para 11 thereof records that on applications of the workmen for computation of the amount due, the Labour Court found certain amounts to be due to the workmen. 2. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner / review applicant is that the applications filed by the respondent workmen under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were in fact dismissed on 02.04.2008 and the same were wrongfully revived by the Labour Court on application of the workmen without issuing notice to the petitioner and amounts found due and stay of recovery whereof was sought from this Court on 26.04.2010. It is further the contention of the counsel for the petitioner / review applicant that the observations of this Court in para 11 to the effect that the applications were allowed by the Labour Court are coming in the way of the petitioner / review applicant seeking remedies against the illegal revival of the Section 33C...
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs. Padmini Technologies Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2011
1. The captioned appeal pertains to assessment year 1997-1998. The revenue in this appeal has broadly raised several issues, even though the proposed question of laws are five in number. In so far as the first two issues are concerned in a connected appeal of the revenue being ITA No.1136/2007 we have already admitted the said appeal and framed questions of law which require adjudication. It is agreed by the learned counsels for the parties that the same questions of law can be framed in the captioned appeal as well. 2. This brings to fore the third issue which pertains to the claim of deduction by the assessee under section 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, IT Act). The revenue has proposed a question of law for our consideration even with regard to this issue. 3. In order to come to a conclusion either way, the following brief facts required to be noticed :- 3.1. The assessee runs and manages two units. Out of these two units, one unit is in the business of multimedia. In...
Himalayan Advertising Vs. Yogesh Kapur, M.D., D.T.C
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2011
1. The counsel for the petitioner/relator seeks time to file rejoinder. The counsels for the respondents oppose contending that the petitioner/relator is enjoying an interim stay. 2. The counsel for the petitioner/relator states that though interim protection was granted to the petitioner but the petitioner has not had any benefit thereof inasmuch as the respondents have constructed parallel bus shelters and violated the order. He expresses inability to argue today. 3. In the circumstances, since the petitioner is not having any benefit of the stay, the interim order is vacated. Rejoinder be filed within eight weeks. 4. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner states that he will argue the writ petition as well as contempt petition today itself. The counsel for the respondent no.1 DTC states that the reply filed in the contempt case may be read in response to the writ petition also. Rather the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.2 Delhi Integrated Multi Modal Transit Syst...
Union of India and ors. Vs. L.R. Meena and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2011
1. Calling in question the legal defensibility of the order dated 14 th December, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short „the tribunal) in OA No. 718/2010, the Union of India and its functionaries have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the same. 2. The facts which are necessary to be stated for the purpose of adjudication of this writ petition are that the first respondent approached the tribunal in OA No.2846/2009 for issuance of a direction to the respondents therein to take action on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and the tribunal vide order dated 12th October, 2009 directed that the applicant therein was at least entitled to know the reasons why the recommendations made by duly constituted DPC had not been given effect to and, accordingly, directed the respondents therei...
Angrejo and ors. Vs. Rajinder Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi dated 08.11.1994 whereby the Claim Petition of the appellants bearing Suit No.134/83 under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was dismissed. 2. The concise facts as set out in the Claim Petition are that on 11.02.1983, a private bus bearing No.DEP-2418 plying under DTC operation on route No. 835, driven rashly and negligently by the respondent No.1, hit the three-wheeler scooter (luggage carrier) owned and driven by one Harke Ram near Taunga Stand at Chara Mandi, Najafgarh, Delhi, resulting in Harke Ram receiving grievous injuries to which he succumbed on the following day, that is, on 12.02.1983. Allegedly, the bus was owned by the respondent No.2 and was plying under DTC operation, and was insured with the respondent No.3-M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. A Claim Petition for grant of compensation in the sum of ` 2.50 lakhs was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Ha...
Ravi Kumar Pandit Vs. India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2011
1. The petitioner, a General Manager (Engineering) under India Tourism Development Corporation Limited (ITDC), was authorized to exercise powers of Vice-President(Engineering) / Senior Vice-President (Engineering) by order dated 2.1.2009 by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the ITDC. On 29.3.2011, the officiating charge of the Vice- President given to the petitioner was withdrawn. Being grieved by such an action, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (for short, „the tribunal) in OA No.1265/2011 for quashment of such an action / order. 2. It was set forth before the tribunal that the petitioner was confirmed on the post of General Manager in ITDC vide order dated 17.9.2009. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the ITDC being satisfied, acknowledging and appreciating his work, promoted him to the vacant post of Vice-President(Engineering) on 21.10.2009 and at that juncture he was given the pay scale of Rs.43200-6600(IDA). At the time o...
Dr.R.L.Arora Vs. I.C.A.R and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2011
1. The petitioner, has challenged the order dated 9th February, 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 1332/94 titled as „Dr.R.L.Arora v. Indian Council for Agricultural Research through Director General and Anr. dismissing the original application of the petitioner seeking the benefits of the judgment dated 28th January, 1992 passed in the case of Dr.M.L.Lodha and Ors v. Indian Council for Agricultural Research & Ors. by the Tribunal as well as the benefits on the basis of the recommendations of the High Power Committee and a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Project Coordinator for which the petitioner had already applied and made a representation dated 19th August, 1993. 2. Brief facts to comprehend the disputes are that the petitioner had filed the original application seeking the benefits of the judgment rendered by the Tribunal in transfer application No.8/1990 so fa...
Dharmender Kumar Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing) and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2011
1. The petitioner is aggrieved from the condition imposed for issuance of temporary license for sale of fire crackers at the time of the festivals of Dassehra and Diwali, of the shop with respect to which temporary license is sought, not to have residence above. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been issued such temporary license with respect to Shop No.1401-A, Bazar Gullian, Jama Masjid, Delhi for the last 35 years and cannot now be denied the temporary license. 2. Notice of the petition was issued on the plea of the petitioner that though such a condition was imposed for issuance of temporary license, permanent licenses had been issued with respect to shops with residences above. 3. The counsel for the respondents has invited attention to Rule 83 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 which prohibits the storage in shops of explosives other than inter alia fireworks and requires the shop to be not situated under the upper floor used for the purpose of dwelling. It is further the co...
Tinku and Others Vs. Hawa Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2011
1 These are two appeals filed by the claimants of two victims. Sanjeev Kumar is the father of the victim Sawan Kumar who was aged 5 years on the date of the accident. In this case, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- as damages of which Rs.1,25,000/- was calculated as 'loss of dependency', Rs.5,000/- as funeral expenses, pecuniary damages to the tune of Rs.75,000/- and non pecuniary damages also to the tune of Rs.75,000/-. The Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Malik and other v. Kiran Pal and others 2007 ACJ 2010 has considered the law with regard to compensation to be awarded in a case of child victim; this has been followed by subsequently by a Bench of this Court in reported in II (2010) ACC 9 National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Farzana; in this case the child victim was aged 7 years; a Bench of this Court relying upon the judgment of R.K. Malik (Supra) had awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/- under the head of 'pain and sufferings' and another sum of Rs.75,000/- for 'loss of fut...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »