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.
New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. These two Appeals arise out of an accident between a truck No. UP-78T-9758 and a Tata Sumo bearing No. DL-6CA-8077. 2. MAC APP. 36/2011 relates to death of Prem Dutt Bhatt in the accident which took place on 5.5.2006. A compensation of Rs.2,03,796/- with interest @ 8% per annum was awarded in favour of respondents 3(a) to (c). 3. Similarly MAC 41/2011 relates to the death of Prem Prakash wherein a compensation of Rs.11,38,825/- was awarded. 4. The only ground of challenge common in both the Appeals is that the Tata Sumo vehicle hit the truck from the rear. Unless and until the Tata Sumo was being driven at a very fast speed the accident could have been avoided by the driver of the Tata Sumo. It is thus pleaded that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Sumo or in the alternative it is submitted that there was contributory negligence of the driver of Tata Sumo. Both these Claim Petition Bearing Suit No. 280/2006 a...
Sanjay Batra Vs. Gulshan Sahani and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral)1. Impugned judgment is dated 14.07.2011; eviction filed by the landlord seeking eviction of the tenant from a shop bearing No. 62, Khursheed Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi measuring 6X3 square feet as depicted in the red colour in the site plan had been decreed in favour of the landlord. The application seeking leave to defend filed by the tenant had been dismissed.2. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord against two tenants qua the aforenoted premises. Contention is that the premises have been let out to the tenant on 18.12.1990 vide a rent agreement; the landlord is the owner of the suit premises having purchased them from one Narender Kumar vide a registered power of attorney and other allied documents dated 15.11.1990; the present tenant was inducted into the shop vide a rent agreement dated 08.12.1990; he is running a business of wholesale of various kinds of cloths under the name and style of ‘M/s Sun Raj Sports&...
Vikas Vihar Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Budhiraja Elec ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
1. Vikas Vihar Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. (‘Society’) has filed CS (OS) No. 192 of 2011 under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (‘Act’) praying for a direction to the learned Arbitrator (Respondent No. 2) to file in this Court a copy of the Award dated 7th January 2011 by which the disputes between the Society and the Respondent No. 1, Budhiraja Electricals, arising out of a contract for providing electrical works for the 219 dwelling units of the Society, were adjudicated. 2. The disputes between the parties were referred initially to the sole arbitration of a retired Judge of this Court and an Award was passed on 19th October 2002. Both parties filed objections to the said Award in CS (OS) No. 192 of 2002. By an order dated 25th February 2010 this Court set aside the Award and Respondent No. 2 was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to decide afresh the disputes between the parties i.e. both their claims and counter claims. By the fresh impugned...
Veerender Singh Dahiya Vs. Director, Lady Hardinge Medical College and ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
1. This Application is directed against Office Memorandum dated 9.11.2011 whereby the Applicant’s request for change of his quarter has been turned down for the reason that he has already availed the change for the same type earlier. 2. The Applicant, who has been working as Technical Assistant in Kalawati Saran Children’s Hospital (KSCH), was initially allotted Quarter No.9, Telegraph Square on 13.1.2004. He sought change of it on the ground of seepage damaging the wall in December, 2005 and asked for Quarter No.10, Telegraph Square in change, which was allotted to him. He has now sought a change to Quarter No.46 at Telegraph Square on twin grounds of it being improper and causing inconvenience to his family members and he being a cancer patient, he is required to live in hygienic and infection free atmosphere as he is prone to infections. However, his request has been turned down for the reason that he has already sought change once and rules do not provide any further ch...
R.K. Mann and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
ORAL: G. George Paracken, J. 1. The Applicants are Assistant Malaria Inspectors. Their next promotional post is Malaria Inspector. At present, they are governed by the ‘Recruitment Regulations, for the post of Malaria Inspector in the Health Department of Municipal Corporation of Delhi’ notified vide No.F2/210/75-LSG dated February 1976 (1976 Rules for short). According to the said Recruitment Rules, the educational qualification for promotion to the post of Malaria Inspector is ‘Matriculation with Science’. However, the Respondent-MCD in terms of the provisions contained Section in 98 of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi Act, proposed draft Recruitment Rules to amend the ‘1976 Rules’. By the proposed amendment, the educational qualification for the post of Malaria Inspector contained in 1976 Rules as has been prescribed as only ‘Matriculation’. In other words, the MCD wanted to remove the word ‘Science’ for the 1976 Rules in...
Prem Kumar and Other Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
SURESH KAIT, J: (Oral) 1. Issue notice. 2. Mr. Navin Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of the State/respondent No.1. 3. Mr. Jagdish Lal Lamba, respondent No.2 is present in person. 4. With the consent of ld. Counsels for parties, instant petition is taken for disposal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR No. 680 dated 21.6.1999, case under Sections 420 of Indian Penal Code, was registered at P.S. Rajouri Garden, New Delhi against the petitioners, on the complaint of respondent No.2. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the matter has amicably been settled between the parties vide compromise deed dated 13.02.2012 for a total sum of `70,000/-. 7. Further submits that the respondent No.2/complainant does not wish to pursue the case, therefore the FIR mentioned above and all emanating proceedings thereto may be quashed. 8. Mr. Jagdish Lal Lamba, respondent No.2 who is present in person submits that he has ...
Mehmood Ali and Others Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
SURESH KAIT, J (Oral) CRL.M.C. 593/2012 1. Issue notice. 2. Mr. Navin Shrama, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State. 3. Respondent No.2 is present in person in the Court today. She has been identified by SI Prem Singh, Investigating Officer of the case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR No. 277 dated 22.07.2011, case under Sections 406/498-A/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at P.S. Malviya Nagar, Delhi against the petitioners, on the complaint of respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the dispute has been resolved vide MOU dated 03.11.2011 between petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 vide which petitioner No. 1 has agreed to pay a total sum of `1,30,000/- towards full and final settlement against all the claims including maintenance, present, past and future alimony, out of which `60,000/- has already been paid to respondent No.2 and `70,000/- has been handed over in cash to respondent No.2 in Court...
Deepak Nangia and Others Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
SURESH KAIT, J (Oral) 1. Notice issued. 2. Ld. APP accepts notice on behalf of the State. 3. Mr. Diwakar Sharma, Adv. accepts notice on behalf of respondent no. 2. 4. With the consent of ld. Counsels for the parties, the instant petition is taken for disposal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR no. 223 dated 06.06.2011, case under Section 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at PS-Malviya Nagar against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent no. 2. 6. It is further submitted that thereafter vide settlement dated 04.07.2011, respondent no. 2 has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR. Pursuant to the said settlement, First Motion for dissolution of marriage is already over on 10.01.2012. The Second Motion shall be filed after the passing of statutory period. 7. It is further submitted that as per the settlement mentioned above, petitioner no. 1 agreed to pay Rs.5 Lacs to respondent no.2 and the same has been paid. Therefore, she is no more...
Mor Singh Kandari and Others Vs. Mcd and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
HIMA KOHLI, J (ORAL) C.M.No.2181 of 2012 1. The present application is filed by the petitioners praying inter alia for directions to the respondents/MCD to de-seal their shops and allow them to continue their business from the allotted sites at Pitampura, Rohini Zone, in view of the status quo order dated 08.11.2011 passed in the present petition. Counsel for the petitioners states that on 14.2.2012, the respondent/MCD had taken sealing action in respect of the tehbazari sites in question. She further states that before taking the sealing action, the respondent/MCD did not pass any revocation order in terms of the second set of notices to show cause issued to the petitioners and, therefore, their sealing action is bad in law and liable to be set aside. 2. Counsel for the respondents states that the respondents/MCD had issued notices to show cause to the petitioners in November, 2011 pointing out that they were running the tehbazari sites in breach of the terms and conditions of allocat...
Satish Chand Gupta and Another Vs. Mcd and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners praying inter alia for issuance of directions to respondents No.1, 3 and 5 to remove the encroachment on public land outside premises No.2/2, 2/3, 2/4, Roop Nagar, Delhi, and premises No.43-A, 28-E, 29-E, 42-E, D-176, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, and other places surrounding the residence of the petitioners, i.e., premises No.2/2, Roop Nagar, Delhi. 2. Counsel for the petitioners states that respondents No.6 to 8 are the brothers of the petitioners and all of them are residing in the same premises, i.e., premises No.2/2, Roop Nagar, Delhi. He further states that the petitioners have filed a suit for partition against respondents No.6 to 8 in respect of premises No.2/2, Roop Nagar, Delhi, which is pending adjudication on the original side of this Court. He contends that respondents No.6 to 8 are running a factory in a part of the subject premises, by installing an oil extracting machine and thus creating a nuisance in a re...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »