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.
Rajesh Kumar and Another Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
PRATIBHA RANI, J. (Oral) 1. Appellants Rajesh Kumar and Sarwan Kumar have been convicted for having committed offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC in relation to the homicidal death of one Krishan Kumar. They have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `2000/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the two appellants have approached this Court by way of two separate appeals. 3. The criminal law was set into motion on the basis of information received vide DD No.23 dated 16.11.1995 at PS Trilok Puri from Ct. Gopal Prasad posted at JPN Hospital that one Krishan Kumar, son of Sh.Mool Chand, resident of 13/59, Trilok Puri had been got admitted with stab wounds in the hospital by his brother Radhey Shyam, and that Krishan Kumar had been declared brought dead. The copy of DD was handed over to SI Mahesh Chand Meena who alongwith Ct. Dharampal and Ct. Dhyan Singh reached the hospital. 4. Prem Kumar, an eye w...
State Vs. Mohd Furkan and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT) 1. Through this Petition the State seeks leave to appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 27.11.2010 whereby the accused, Respondents to this Petition, were acquitted of all charges pertaining to the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 406/498A/304B IPC. 2. The prosecution allegations were that Sabila had married Respondent-Mohd.Furkan as per Muslim rites on 25.03.2008 at Khureji, Delhi. She died within a year of her marriage i.e. on 15.03.2009 at her matrimonial home i.e. at H.No.14, Basti 64 Khamba, Near Masjid, Meer Dard Road, New Delhi. The prosecution alleged that intimation about the incident was received by police, I.P.Estate at around 4:47 P.M. on 15.03.2009 by DD No.27 (Ex.PW9/A). It was also alleged that this was relayed by PCR Call ( Ex.PW-17/A) at 4 :48 P.M. on 15.03.2009. The police apparently reached the site and recorded the statement of the deceased’s mother-Ruksana who deposed as PW-2 during trial. PW-8 HC Arya...
Technofab Engineering Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
1. A short question arises for consideration in this petition filed by Technofab Engineering Ltd. against an Award dated 13th May 2005 of the sole Arbitrator by which the Petitioner has been directed to pay the Respondent a sum of Rs.11,16,492 together with simple interest at 15% per annum from 23rd January 1981 till the date of payment or the date of making the Award a rule of the court, whichever is earlier. By the impugned Award all the counter claims of the Petitioner were rejected. 2. The disputes which were referred to arbitration arose out of a supply order placed by the Director General of Supplies and Disposals (‘DGSandD’) on the Petitioner on 10th August 1979 for the supply of three heat exchanger systems for the Gun Carriage Factory at Jabalpur required for cooling oil of furnaces. The scope of the work of the Petitioner in terms of supply was defined in Clause 4 of the contract which reads as under: “4.1 Description of Stores Ordered: Supply of Complete He...
Samsung Electronics Company Limited and Another Vs. Kapil Wadhwa and O ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. 1. By this order, I propose to dispose of IA No.7774/2011 filed by plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure,1908 and IA No.10124/2011 filed under order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC seeking vacation of interim order passed on 03.06.2011. 2. The brief factual matrix of the matter can be enunciated as under: a) The Plaintiff no 1 is stated to be a company incorporated under the laws of Korea. The plaintiff No. 2 is stated to be company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Both the plaintiffs collectively stated to be a part of Samsung Group of Companies having 14 listed companies and 285 worldwide operations. b) It is stated that the plaintiffs are engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading in electronic goods such colour televisions of all types, home appliances, washing machines, microwaves, air conditions, computers, printers and cartridges etc. c) The plaintiffs have stated to earn revenues for the year 2009 around US$ 172.5 Billion a...
Mohd. Muzammil and Others Vs. State Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
SURESH KAIT, J (Oral) Crl. M. A. No. 2058/2012 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 585/2012 1. Issue notice. 2. Ms. Rajdipa Behura, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State. 3. Mr. Saqib Bharti, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR No. 85 dated 16.04.2011, case under Sections 498-A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at P.S. Timarpur, New Delhi against the petitioners, on the complaint of respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the matter has amicably been settled vide settlement dated 01.09.2011 arrived at Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. Respondent No.2 has settled all her claims for a total sum of `2,00,000/-. It is further submitted that consequent to the said settlement marriage between the petitioners No.1 and respondent No.2 has also been dissolved by ‘Talaknama’. 6. It is further submitted that out...
G. Jayalal Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
V.K. JAIN, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.11.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby Original Application No. 1290/2011, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed. The facts leading to the filing of the aforesaid Original Application can be summarized as follows: Advertisements to fill up the posts of Director General in All India Radio and Doordarshan were issued on 20.10.2010 and 20.12.2010 respectively. A committee (Prasar Bharti Board) headed by Mrinal Pande, Chairperson, Prasar Bharti Board was constituted to make recommendations for appointment to the aforesaid posts. The other members of the committee were Shri Rajiv Takru, IAS (Nominated Member, Prasar Bharti), Shri A.K. Jain, IAS, (Member-Finance, Prasar Bharti), Shri Shivkumar, (Member-Personnel, Prasar Bharti), Dr Sunil Kapoor, Member, Prasar Bharti Board, Dr George Verghese, Member, Prasar B...
Vishwajit Dass @ Nirmal Dass Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
S.RAVINDRA BHAT,J. 1. The appellant in this case challenges the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 16.02.2004 in a case arising out of FIR No.133/2000. The appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Section-396/450/34, IPC. 2. The prosecution’s allegations were that pursuant to the complaint of one Pratima Gupta, the concerned FIR was recorded in respect of the incident which occurred on 14.4.2000 at about 08:45 PM. She was working in her kitchen and her husband was in the drawing room. The door bell rang; it was attended to by her husband. The complainant then heard some noise and when she went to the drawing room, she saw that a person had pushed her husband on to the floor and was sitting on his chest, strangling his neck. There were four others. One of them pointed a knife at her throat and demanded that she should give everything or else she would be stabbed. She, therefore, removed her gold chain, five bangles, ear top and a rin...
Mst. Razia Begum Vs. Mohd. Ilyas and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
ANIL KUMAR, J. This suit is listed pursuant to a communication received by the Registry from the office of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Daryaganj, New Delhi dated 20th April, 2010 with a direction to submit valuation report of municipal property bearing No. 838-839, Ward No. XI (Old), situated at Haveli Azam Khan, Bazar Chitli Qabar, Delhi-110006 taking into consideration the latest sale deeds at the higher side of the transaction of the property situated in and around the same locality showing the market value of the property as on the date of decree, i.e., 27.5.2009. Pursuant to the letter received from the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Daryaganj, the plaintiff was directed to give a reply to the demand by the Sub Divisional Magistrate to give the valuation report of the property. A reply dated 22nd April, 2010 has been filed by the plaintiff/decree holder contending, inter alia, that judgment and decree dated 27th May, 2009 reveals that the suit was disposed of in terms of the oral s...
Ramphal, Store Petty Officer Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
ANIL KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22nd July, 2011 passed by the Armed Force Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.450/2010, titled as „Ramphal, Store Petty Officer v. Union of India and Ors.‟, dismissing his application seeking the quashing of orders dated 12th June, 2009, 23rd September, 2009 and 29th January, 2010 and declining his prayer of declaring him to have passed out as Store Assistant-I (SA-I) instead of Store Assistant-II (SA-II) and allowing him to maintain his original seniority w.e.f. 19th May, 1988 when he had enrolled. 2. The Tribunal had held that since the petitioner had claimed the seniority viz-a-viz other persons, who had not been impleaded before the Tribunal, it could not examine the averments of the petitioner seeking seniority above them. The Tribunal had also declined to grant the petitioner seniority over the non-impleaded individuals, in view of the averments made by the respondents in their counter affidavit...
Shri Arun Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
BADAR DURREZ AHMED (ORAL) 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.04.2011 passed in OA No.3451/2010 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby the petitioner’s said Original Application was dismissed. The petitioner had claimed regularization in a suitable group „D’post on the allegation that persons junior to him had been regularized. 2. The petitioner had based his case on a scheme issued by the Government of India known as Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1993. The petitioner had also based his claim on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and Ors. : 2006 (4) SCC 1. 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was engaged as a casual worker on 01.02.1995 in the Income-tax office in district Dehradun. He was disengaged on 31.12.2005. The petitioner claimed that since, according to him, he had been in continuous servi...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »