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.
Harpreet Kaur and ors. Vs. Dharam Pal Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2011
1. By way of this appeal, the appellants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased Surender Pal Singh, who died in a road accident on 28.08.1992, seek enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to them by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi by its judgment and award dated 25.07.2001. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal are that a claim petition bearing Suit No. 899/1992 was filed by the appellants under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation in the sum of ` 80 lacs against the driver, the owner and the insurer of the offending tanker, which had crushed the TSR in which the deceased was travelling as a passenger. In the written statement filed by him, the respondent No.1 denied that he was driving the offending tanker at the time of the accident, but the insurance of the said vehicle in the name of the respondent No.2- owner was admitted by the Insurance Company, arrayed as the respondent No.3 in the cla...
Bhagwati Devi and ors. Vs. D.T.C. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2011
1. The appellants in this appeal are the legal representatives of the deceased Ramesh Kumar, who seek to assail the judgment and award dated 23.08.1991 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi, whereby a sum of ` 1,44,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till the date of the realisation, was awarded to the appellants on account of the unfortunate death of the said Ramesh Kumar in a road accident. 2. The concise facts are that on 02.09.1984, the deceased was going on a three-wheeler scooter bearing No.DER-1887 from Vishwas Nagar via Wazirabad bridge, and after coming on Alipur Road had taken a turn for reaching Rajpur Road, when he was hit by a Delhi Transport Corporation bus bearing No. DEP-8356, driven recklessly and negligently by the respondent No.2. A claim Petition under Section 92-A and Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was filed by his legal representatives claiming a sum of ` 10,00,000/- by w...
Ex.Const./Gd Rana Pratap Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2011
1. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to filing of the present petition are that the petitioner was enrolled as a Constable under Border Security Force and was attached with the 23rd Battalion and on 16.11.2008 was performing duties in the D Coy on Indo-Bangladesh border at BOPs Soldighi and Nayabari. 2. The petitioner and Ct.B.Kapmilian PW-2, were detailed to perform patrolling duty at Ambush Point No.3 from 05.30 PM on 16.03.2008 till 08.00 AM on 17.03.2008. The area comprising Ambush Point No.3 extended from BFL Poles No.8 to 22. Ct.B.Kapmilian PW-2 and the petitioner decided amongst themselves that the petitioner would patrol between BFL Poles No.8 to 14 and Ct.B.Kapmilian would patrol between BFL Poles No.15 to 22. 3. When Ct.B.Kapmilian PW-2, was patrolling in his area, at about 09.40 PM, he heard the sound of gun fire from towards Bangladesh side, whereupon he went to the area where the petitioner was patrolling but could not see him and thus he went to the Coy Head...
Raju Vs. State (Govt of Nct) of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2011
1. Although this petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is essentially in the nature of an application under Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). 2. The petitioner (Raju) was an accused in connection with FIR No. 541/1995 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Daryaganj under Sections 147/148/149/307/302/34 IPC. Initially, there were five accused which included the petitioner and his parents Birbal and Omwati. The other two accused were the brothers of the present petitioner, namely, Sunil and Pramod. The latter two were straightaway considered to be juveniles and were dealt with by the Juvenile Court. 3. Insofar as the present petitioner and his parents Birbal and Omwati are concerned, they faced trial which culminated in the judgment passed by the learned Addl Sessions Judge on 29.01.2001 whereby they were convicted under Sections 147/148/149/307/302/34 IPC. By a...
Rajendra Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2011
1. The Petitioner who was working in Respondent No. 2, Central Bank of India (hereinafter „the Bank), as Sub-Accountant challenges an administrative order dated 25th May 1993 issued by the Regional Manager of the Bank informing him that the Disciplinary Authority („DA) has awarded him the consolidated punishment "removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment" in terms of Regulation 4(g) of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees (D&A) Regulations, 1976 („Regulations). The Petitioner also challenges an order dated 24th November 1993 passed by the Appellate Authority („AA) rejecting his appeal. The Petitioner prays for the setting aside of the above orders and for a direction to the Bank to reinstate him in service with full back wages and continuity in service. 2. The Petitioner joined the services of the Bank in 1962 and rose to the position of Chief Cashier/Sub-Accountant in 1979. While working as a Chief Cashier/Sub- ...
Yaro Khan @ Ahmad Shah Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2011
1. The petitioner, in W.P.(C) No.2599/2007 seeks a declaration that he is an Indian citizen by birth and a direction to the respondents to treat him as an Indian national by birth; he also impugns the order dated 13.04.2006 of his deportation from India and seeks to restrain the respondents from taking any action towards his deportation. 2. W.P.(C) No.4112/2007 has been filed impugning the order of cancelling / impounding the Indian passport earlier issued to the petitioner and seeks a mandamus for issuance of a fresh passport to the petitioner. 3. Notice of both the petitions was issued and vide interim order dated 04.04.2007 in W.P.(C) No.2599/2007, which continues to be in force, deportation of the petitioner was stayed. 4. The counsel for the petitioner has argued with reference to W.P.(C) No.2599/2007 and has stated that the result thereof would determine the fate of W.P.(C) No.4112/2007 also. 5. It is not for the first time that the order of deportation of the petitioner has been...
Ashok Sachdeva Vs. Tuberculosis Association of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2011
1. The Petitioner who was working as Secretary General and Chief Executive Officer of the Tuberculosis Association of India („TAI) filed this petition on 23rd April 2001, challenging the appointment of the Management Committee („MC) by the Central Committee („CC) of TAI at its meeting on 23rd March 1998; the constitution of the Disciplinary Committee („DC) by the CC of TAI at its meeting on 2nd December 1999; the memorandum and articles of charge dated 16th May 2000 issued by Respondent No. 6, i.e., the Vice Chairman of TAI; quashing of Memorandum dated 20th March 2001 and two other Memoranda dated 23rd March 2001 issued by Respondent No. 6. 2. While directing notice to issue in the petition on 27th April 2001, this Court had directed that any order passed by the Respondent would be subject to further orders of this Court. 3. On 6th September 2001, this Court was informed that TAI had on 29th May 2001 passed an order removing the Petitioner from the service of T...
Sonal Mansingh Vs. Beena Om Prakash
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2011
1. In this petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 the petitioner-tenant, who claims herself to be a recipient of Padma Bhushan and Padma Vibhushan awards has questioned the legality and propriety of the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller directing her eviction from the ground floor of a residential property in Defence Colony which she has been occupying as a tenant since the year 1976. The eviction order has been passed in an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) filed by her landlady, the respondent herein, on the ground that she required the premises in the occupation of the petitioner-tenant bona fide for her own use and which, according to the respondent-landlady, should have been voluntarily vacated by the petitioner-tenant accepting her bona fide requirement because of her ailments as also of her 78 years old husband. 2. The eviction order has been impugned by the petitioner-tenant since it has been passed without any opportunity to her ...
Manoj Singh Vs. State and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2011
1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus requiring the production of Kamlesh, who is alleged to be the petitioner's wife. On issuance of notice, Kamlesh had been produced before this court from Nari Niketan as she had been sent there pursuant to an order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 24.03.2010 in a case registered against the petitioner in Police Station Sangam Vihar under Section 363/366/376 IPC. Thereafter she has been produced before this Court from Nirmal Chhaya, Nari Niketan on different dates. Kamlesh's father, Sh. Ram Khiladi has also been appearing before this court on several occasions. 2. The learned counsel for the State submitted that Kamlesh had filed a writ petition being W.P.(Crl) No. 1278/2009 wherein it was prayed that FIR No. 312/2009 under Sections 363 IPC registered at Police Station Sangam Vihar in which the present petitioner is an accused, be quashed. The said writ petition, was dismissed by an order dated 02.02.2010 pa...
Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Vs. Sh. G.S. Mehra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2011
1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (for short „the Board) has assailed the order dated 19.11.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short „the tribunal) in TA No.523/2009. 2. The facts in a nutshell are that the respondent, a retired employee of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), had approached the tribunal challenging the order dated 1.7.2008 whereby in pursuance of the proceedings initiated under Section 8-A of the DMC Services (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959 (for short „the 1959 Regulations), a minor penalty of censure was inflicted on him. That apart, the order dated 10.4.2008, whereby the charge of Deputy Director from the applicant was taken over and others were promoted, was also challenged. After the MCD, by virtue of a notification issued under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »