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.
Namrata Singh and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2011
1. We are pained to note the merry-go-round, cat and mouse game, played at the instance of learned counsel for the petitioners and for which, as would be noted herein after, the petitioners would have to pay some price. 2. Seeking public employment as a Lady Sub-Inspector under CISF, learned counsel for the petitioners drafted and filed a writ petition in this Court only impleading the Staff Selection Commission as a party and since CISF was not impleaded as a respondent, on the basis of learned counsel for the petitioners assigning a code to the writ petitions which required the same to be treated as raising a Civil Service related dispute under the Union, the Registry listed the writ petitions filed before a learned Single Judge where a stand was taken by the Staff Selection Commission that service disputes pertaining to the Union have to be adjudicated before the Central Administrative Tribunal and very gullibly the counsel for the petitioners withdrew the writ petitions stating tha...
Bhupinder Singh and ors Vs. State and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2011
1. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that vide FIR No. 156/2010, a case under Sections 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners at P.S. Vikas Puri. Further submits, that the matter has been settled between the parties for a total sum of ì 3,50,000/- The marriage between the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 has already been dissolved vide decree of divorce dated 27.07.2011. 2. It is submitted that as settled between the parties, a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and admitted dowry articles has been returned to the respondent No. 2/complainant. 3. Respondent No.2/complainant is personally present in the court today. She is duly identified by her counsel, Mr. Ranvir Vats, Advocate and IO/ASI Rajender Singh, PS Vikas Puri, Delhi. She submits that she does not want to pursue the case anymore in view of the settlement arrived at between her and the petitioners. She further submits that she has no objection if the abovementioned FIR is quashed. 4. Learn...
Association of Radio and Television Engineering Employees and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2011
1. An interesting question of law concerning the interpretation of the expression "service matters" defined in Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 („ATA) arises for consideration in this petition. 2. The Association of Radio and Television Engineering Employees („ARTEE), All India Radio and Doordarshan Technical Employees Association („ADTEA) and Programme Staff Association of All India Radio & Doordarshan („PSA) have filed this petition seeking a large number of reliefs. The principal challenge is to an order dated 8th September 2011 issued by the Secretariat of Prasar Bharti, Respondent No. 2, which reads as under: "It has been decided that as no association of employees of AIR and Doordarshan falls in the category of recognized associations, no so called office bearer of any of these employees associations is to be extended any preferential treatment. 2. All employees of Prasar Bharati are to be treated in a fair and transparent manner ...
Naushad Ali and anr Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.08.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 37/1990 arising out of FIR No. 151/1990 registered at Police Station Defence Colony under Section 307/302/34 IPC whereby the co-convict Bobby @ Massey was found guilty of having committed the offence punishable under section 302 IPC and the present appellant Naushad Ali was found to be guilty of having committed the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 IPC. The appellant is also aggrieved by the order on sentence dated 20.08.1997 whereby the present appellant Naushad Ali was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and was also required to pay a fine of ` 200/- and in default of payment of the fine he was required to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days. 2. We must point out at this juncture that the co-convict Bobby @ Massey had also filed an appeal being Crl. Appeal No. 368/1997 but, during the pendency of the appeal...
Dilip Kumar Saha Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2011
1. The petitioner, who was a Private Secretary in the Ministry of Finance, filed an application dated 23.12.2003 for seeking a term loan from the respondent-Bank to the tune of `13,41,000.00 for the purchase of flat No.39-C, Second Floor, Pocket-I, Rohini, Delhi- 110085. The loan was sanctioned and the petitioner executed various documents including the agreement for housing loan dated 11.2.2004 in terms whereof the petitioner was required to pay monthly installments of `11,950.00 in 216 monthly installments. The petitioner also executed a letter of authority of the even date authorizing the respondent Bank to debit the sum of the monthly installments from his bank account. 2. The petitioner defaulted in paying monthly installments which fact was admitted by the petitioner in its letter dated 23.11.2005 seeking indulgence. The bank responded by calling upon the petitioner to adhere to the financial discipline but despite various reminders the account was not regularized. It may be noti...
Bhabajiban Bhattacharya and ors Vs. Mcd and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2011
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners praying inter alia for directions to respondents No.1 and 3/MCD to not grant permission to any Samiti or person for performing any Puja or any other function at the K- Block Main Park (behind Purboshree Mahila Samiti), C.R. Park, New Delhi. 2. Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are residents of K-Block, C.R. Park, New Delhi, and have approached this Court for seeking restraint orders against respondents No.1 and 3/MCD in view of their apprehension that the respondent/MCD is in the process of granting permission to respondent No.4, Chittaranjan Park Milan Samiti to conduct Durga Puja in a park situated in K-Block, which has been developed by the Residents Welfare Association (RWA) of the area by executing a MOU with the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, whereafter grants-in-aid were granted by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi to the RWA for meeting the expenses incurred for maintaining and developing the park. He submits that after ...
Wazirpur Industrial Pollution Control (Cetp), Society Vs. Lt. Governer ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2011
1. The writ petition has been filed seeking declaration that the actions of the respondent No.3 Commissioner of Industries and the respondent No.4 Additional Commissioner of Industries of not allowing elections to take place of the petitioner Society is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to provisions of law, and for restraining the respondents from placing any fetters on the smooth conduct of elections of the petitioner Society. 2. Notice of the petition was issued. This Court in order dated 25.05.2011 noticed one of the issues concerning election being as to the list of eligible voters and issued certain directions in that regard. On 11.08.2011, the counsel for the respondent No.5 Dy. Commissioner of Industries informed that upon verification in terms of the earlier order dated 25.05.2011, it was found that only eight members had deposited the subscription upto 31.03.2011 and that as per the Bye-Laws of the petitioner Society only those who had deposited the subscription upto 31.03.2011...
Raj Kumar and anr. Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2011
1. Vide this appeal, the appellants have initially challenged the impugned judgment dated 02.07.2009 passed by ld. ASJ whereby they were held guilty under Section 392/394/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also challenged order of conviction dated 08.07.2009 whereby the appellants have been convicted and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 05 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 392/394/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Ld. counsel for the appellant No.2 submits on instructions that appellant No.2 namely Jitesh @ Tie S/o Late Sh. Nihal Singh. This appellant do not dispute or challenge the impugned judgment and the conviction order as stated above. However, he has prayed while maintaining the conviction and sentence of the appellant No.2, he be released on sentence already undergone. 3. As mentioned above, appellant No.2 has been sentenced to RI for 05 years whereas he has already undergone 03 year 06 months as on 10.09.2011. He has also earned 05 months and 18 days remission. In ...
Bharat @ Titu and ors Vs. State and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2011
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR No.107/2008 dated 04.03.2008 a case under Section 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been registered against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2 at police station Patel Nagar, New Delhi. Crl.M.C.No.3235/2011 Page 1 of 4 2. Further submits that a settlement has already been arrived at between the petitioners and respondent No.2 before the Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 18.05.2011. Vide decree of divorce dated 01.02.2011, marriage between the respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 has been dissolved. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue present case any further. 4. Respondent No.2 is present in person with her learned counsel Mr.Ashok Kumar Sabharwal, Advocate who has duly identified her. Shri Sunil Kumar, brother of respondent No.2 is also present with respondent No.2. In addition, respondent No.2 has produced her original voter i...
Hamdard Laboratories Vs. Dda and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2011
1. The petition impugns the communication dated 10 th March, 2010 of the respondent DDA intimating to the petitioner the rejection of the application dated 27th December, 2000 for conversion of flat No.J-202 in Taj Sartaj Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. at Link Road, Geeta Colony, New Delhi into freehold, for the reason of non-submission of the required documents/information. The petition also seeks mandamus to the respondent DDA to convert the said flat into freehold. 2. Notice of the petition was issued. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent DDA to which a rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. The counsels have been heard. 3. The counsel for the respondent DDA has invited attention to para 2.12 of the counter affidavit listing out the deficiencies in the application of the petitioner and owing whereto the application for freehold conversion is stated to have been rejected after keeping the same pending for nearly nine years. 4. It has been enquired from the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »