Delhi Court February 2012 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.
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Bacchu Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The Appellant Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited seeks reduction of the compensation of Rs. 22,77,500/- awarded for the death of Harender Kumar, who was aged 21 years and was a third year student of Govt. Polytechnic pursuing Diploma in Engineering.2. The evidence was produced by the Claimants that the deceased had a brilliant sports record. Without any evidence on record, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) assumed that the deceased would have been employed as a Physical Education Teacher (PET) in any Govt. school and would have earned an income of Rs.20,000/- per month. The Claims Tribunal assumed the deceased’s potential income to be Rs.20,000/- and following Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, deducted 50% towards personal living expenses and applied the multiplier of ‘18’. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection to compute...
Parvinder Kaur Vs. Ramesh Kumar JaIn and Another.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)CAV 188/2012 Caveator has put in appearance. Caveat has become infructuous. Dismissed.CM(M) 223/2012 and CM Nos. 3236-3237/2012 1 Order impugned before this Court is the order dated 17.01.2012 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) which has endorsed the finding of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 01.06.2011 vide which the objections filed by the applicant Parvinder Kaur seeking setting aside of the eviction decree dated 13.08.2009 had been dismissed.2 Certain facts are undisputed. The original tenant was Jagjit Singh; he had died on 17.02.2007; he had left behind one son Jaswinder Singh as also a widow and a married daughter. The eviction petition had been filed in the year 2009 arraying Jaswinder singh as a legal representative of the deceased Jagjit Singh; contention being that he was in occupation of the disputed shop after the death of his father; in fact Jaswinder Singh had also filed an application under Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control ...
Jatinder Nath Gupta Vs. Stc of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)IA.No.16402/20091. This an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC filed by the plaintiff. The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of this application are that initially six plaintiffs had instituted the present suit for possession, recovery of arrears of rent and damages. The plaintiffs claim themselves to be the owners of the property bearing No.22 Rajpura Road, Civil Lines, New Delhi, which was purchased by them by means of a perpetual lease deed dated 31.05.1973. The defendant was a tenant before the property was purchased by the plaintiffs. The last paid rent was Rs.10,995/-. After purchase of the suit property vide letter dated 12.09.1973 the plaintiffs informed the defendant that rent of the property be paid to plaintiff no.1, who had the authority on behalf of the other plaintiffs to accept the rent. The defendant has been paying rent prior to termination of the lease in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also brought it to the notice of the defe...
Laxmi Prasad Vs. Suresh Kumar Mudgal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
P.K.BHASIN, J. This revision petition had been filed by the petitioner-tenant under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958(‘the Rent Act’ in short) against the order dated 03.12.1999 passed by Additional Rent Controller rejecting his application for grant of leave to defend the eviction petition filed against him by the respondent-landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Rent Act in respect of two rooms and an open courtyard in house no. 1/2772 Ram Nagar, Loni Road, Gali No. 9, Shahdara, Delhi which had been let out to him(hereinafter to be referred to as the ‘premises in dispute’). 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent had filed an eviction petition against the petitioner in the year 1998 under Section 14(1)(e) read with section 25-B of the Rent Act on the ground that his family consisted of himself, his wife, his two married sons, their wives and children and two married daughters. His sons alongwith their families were living in the ...
Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shobha Devi. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. The Appellant Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd. impugns a judgment dated 05.06.2010 whereby, while awarding a compensation of ` 12,25,000/- for the death of Bhonu Sahni in a motor accident which took place on 13.04.2009, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal made the Appellant (Insurer) liable to pay the compensation awarded.2. The Appellant does not dispute the finding on negligence or on the quantum of compensation. The contentions raised on behalf of the Appellant is that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and, therefore, in view of the judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, III (2002) ACC 753 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and Ors. (2004) 2 SCC 1, the Appellant was not liable at all to pay any compensation. It is urged that even otherwise the vehicle involved in the accident was a three-wheeler bearing No.DL-1LH-1762 having sitting capacity for only the driver which is evident from the Insurance Policy Ex.R4W1/1 and the decea...
Mange Ram and Others Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
A.K. SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE 1. W.P.(C) No.5307/2010 filed by the appellants herein has been dismissed by the Learned Single Judge vide order dated 31st January, 2012 and questioning that order present Intra-Court Appeal has been filed. 2. The writ petition was filed to restrain the respondents, Railways, Government of NCT of Delhi, MCD and DDA from raising construction of a Foot Over Bridge (FOB) for crossing over the railway tracks near the residential colony of Harkesh Nagar, New Delhi. The appellants petitioners had sought such restraint contending, firstly that they were the owners in occupation of the land near the railway tracks where construction was proposed and were being dispossessed for the said construction and secondly on the ground that this Court in W.P.(C) No.3682/2006 earlier filed by the residents of the colony of Harkesh Nagar for mandamus for construction of a FOB at the said site had been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 04.10.2006 in view of the plea...
Pawan Jolly and Another Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. 1. The petitioners filed the above-mentioned petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of probate in respect of the registered Will dated 05.02.1991 executed by deceased Shri Brij Bhushan Jolly with regard to his estate. The said Shri B.B. Jolly died on 21.01.1995.2. The particulars of legal heirs of the deceased Shri B.B.Jolly are given as under:-(i) Mr. Pawan Jolly - Son (Petitioner No.1)(ii) Mrs. Nirmal Jolly - Widow (Petitioner No.2)(iii) Mr. Anil Jolly - Son (Objector)(iv) Mrs. Beena Mehra - daughter(v) Mr. Rakesh Jolly - Son3. The above said Will and testament of the deceased Shri B.B.Jolly was duly executed and registered with the Registrar vide Book No.606, Volume No.III, Addl. Book No.588, Pages 153-157 on 05.02.1991. The petitioner No.2 who was the widow of the deceased, died on 07.05.2007 during the pendency of the present proceedings.4. It is alleged that a plot was purchased on 08.09.1969 by the...
ifci Venture Capital Funds Limited Vs. Smt. Santosh Khosla and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J(ORAL) 1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 18.10.2003 dismissing the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 3,04,597.60/-.2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff granted a loan to the defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 12.5.1978. This loan was granted because the defendant Nos.1 and 2 needed moneys to subscribe to their portions of the share capital in the defendant No.3-company. It was pleaded by the appellant/plaintiff that no interest was payable but service charges @ 1% per annum was payable on the loan which was granted. The loan was secured by the pledge of the borrowers’ entire equity share holding in defendant No.3. The defendants executed various security documents in favour of the appellant/plaintiff on 12.5.1978. An amendatory agreement was also signed on 29.4.1982 by the defendant Nos.1 and ...
Mukesh Kumar @ Pilwa @ Chuha Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
S. Ravindra Bhat (Open Court)1. This Common Order Will Dispose Of The Appeals Directed Against The Judgement And Order Of The Learned Additional Sessions Judge Dated 21-09- 2010 In Sc No. 49/08, By Which The Appellants Were Convicted For The Offence Punishable Under Section 302 Ipc. They Were Sentenced To Undergo Imprisonment For Life And Also To Pay Fine.2. The Prosecution Had Alleged That An Information Was Received On 14- 02-2006 That Foul Smell Was Emanating From A Room In Gali No. 20, East Ram Nagar, Shahdara. Pw-14 Was Deployed; Upon His Reaching The Spot, He Found That The Room Was Locked From Outside. The Police Broke Open The Lock And Found That The Dead Body Of An Unknown Male Was Lying Under The Wooden Cot, In A Decomposed Condition. The Police Recovered An Empty Bottle Of Rum, Two Glasses And Another Half Glass Of Premium Rum. These Articles Were Seized And The Crime Scene Was Photographed. The Police Also Discovered A Bag Near The Body; It Contained A Card Of One Deepak Sh...
J.M. Sharma Vs. Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Hom ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
ORAL: G. George Paracken, J. 1. The applicant was charge-sheeted under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide Memorandum dated 08.06.1998. The charge against him was that he, while working as Assistant Engineer, Supplementary Drainage Division No. V, Delhi Administration, Govt. of NCT of Delhi during the period 27.06.1991 to 24.02.1992, was incharge of execution of the construction of Bridge at RD.30825 mt on the supplementary drain (near Ranhola Village) and the cracks have developed in the bridge and that one span of the bridge has collapsed. Therefore, he failed to maintain devotion to duty and absolute integrity as also to take suitable steps to ensure devotion to duty of Government servants for the time being under his control and authority. Thus, he has violated Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Similar charge-sheets with minor variations have been issued to S/Shri R.M.P. Swamy, R.C. Sood, S.R. Vasudeva, G.S. Arora, N.K. Sharma, R.N. Sharma, Farooqui, Upender Agnidev an...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »