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.
Ram Chander Aggarwal Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. These Intra-Court Appeals are preferred impugning the common order dated 19th January, 2012 of the Learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) No. 8065/2011 and W.P.(C) No. 8036/2011 with costs of `50,000/- each, for the reason of the appellants/writ petitioners having suppressed/concealed material facts therefrom. The counsel for the private respondents appeared on caveat and considering the nature of the controversy, we have with consent heard the parties finally. 2. The writ petitions were filed seeking a direction to the Land and Development Office (LandDO) and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to hear and decide the statutory revision petitions dated 27th July, 2005 and 18th May, 1994 preferred by the appellants/writ petitioners respectively, under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. 3. The aforesaid revision petitions were filed by the appellants/writ petitioners seeking cancellation/setting aside of the sa...
Alok Kumar and Others Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
S.P.GARG, J. 1. Appellants Alok Kumar Singh(hereinafter referred A-1), Santosh Kumar(hereinafter referred A-2) and Sanjay Kumar Mishra (to be referred A-3) have preferred appeals against the judgment of the Ld.Additional Sessions Judge dated 19.11.2001 in SC No.84/1998 by which A-1 and A-2 were convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 302/397/34 IPC. A-3 was convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and under Section 25 Arms Act. All the Appellants were sentenced to undergo various prison terms as mentioned in the order on sentence dated 23.11.2001. 2. The facts emerging from the record of the case are that Ganesh Parshad Singh (hereinafter described as ‘deceased’) and his wife Ms.Mala Singh used to reside at E-118, Shastri Nagar on rent prior to the incident (i.e. 02.05.1998). He also used to carry on business under the name and style of Parmar Plastic at the said premises. 3. On 02.05.1998 DD No.34-D was entered at PS Sarai Rohi...
Hans Raj Taneja Vs. Pushpa Rani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
P.K.BHASIN, J. This petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958(in short ‘the Rent Act’) has been filed by the petitioner-tenant against the order dated 01.08.2001 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller whereby his application for leave to contest the eviction petition filed against him by his landlady, respondent herein, under Section 14-D of the Rent Act to have the possession of one room on the ground floor of property bearing no. 8, Central Road, Bhogal, New Delhi in his occupation as a tenant(hereinafter to be referred as the ‘tenanted room’) had been rejected and he had been ordered to be evicted. 2. The relevant facts pleaded by the respondent-landlady to secure an order of eviction against the petitioner-tenant are that the tenanted room measuring 19 ft. x 7.5 ft. was initially let out to the petitioner-tenant in the year 1950 by her husband who died in the year 1998. He had inherited the said property from his father alo...
Pappu Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
SURESH KAIT, J (Oral) Crl. M. A. No. 2059-2060/2012 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. CMs stand disposed of. CRL.M.C. 586/2012 1. Issue notice. 2. Ms. Navin Sharma, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State. 3. Mr. M.K. Upadhyay, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3. 4. With the consent of ld. Counsels of the parties, the instant petition is taken up for disposal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR No. 179 dated 19.08.2009, case under Sections 363 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at P.S. Welcome Colony, Delhi against the petitioner, on the complaint of respondent No.3. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the matter has amicably been settled between the parties vide compromise deed dated 01.02.2012. He also submits that the complainant/ respondent No.3 is no more interested to pursue the case further and she has no objection if the above mentioned FIR with all emanating proceedings ...
Shiv Charan Dass and Sons Vs. Madan Lal and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
INDERMEET KAUR, J (Oral) 1. Record shows that two suits for recovery of rent had been filed by the landlord against his tenant; these two suits had been decreed by judgments of even date i.e. 29.07.2005 which was for a sum of Rs. 852.84/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively. Against these judgments a first appeal had been preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’). These appeals had been disposed of on 08.07.2008; the suits filed by the landlord had been dismissed; conclusion arrived at by the appellate court was that the defendant was not the tenant in the premises and thus is not liable to pay any arrears of rent. This revision petition has impugned this order dated 08.07.2008. 2. Arguments have been addressed on the maintainability. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that there is a clear embargo under Section 102 of the Code and no second appeal is maintainable in cases where the amount is less than Rs. 2...
Raj Kumar @ Rajesh Pandit Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
G.P. MITTAL, J. 1. The Appellant impugns a judgment dated 06.09.2010 and the order on sentence dated 10.09.2010 whereby the Appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of ` 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo RI for one month. 2. On receipt of a wireless message from Lady Constable Sham Kaur (number 8040/PCR), a DD No.28-A dated 22-23.03.2009 was recorded in the Police Station (PS) Parliament Street at about 1:50 P.M. to the effect that screams of ‗Bachao-Bachao‘ could be heard from near Kothi number 48, Rakab Ganj Road and people were running here and there. The information was passed on to ASI Kapoor Singh (PW-9) who along with Constable Sanjay (PW-12) was present near Gurdwara Rakab Ganj, as they were inquiring into an incident recorded through DD No.24-A, when they reached the park in front of Kothi No.18 they found one l...
Ashwani Mehta and Another Vs. Vibha Mehta and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. Both parties, being husband and wife, are dissatisfied with the order dated 09.09.2011 of the Family Court in exercise of powers under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. awarding a sum of Rs.60,000/- per month as maintenance to be paid by the husband to the wife from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 09.08.2005. When the appeal preferred by the husband came up before this Court, on the objection of the Registry as to the maintainability of the appeal, vide order dated 19.10.2011 the appeal was held to be maintainable and notice thereof was issued and the order of the Family Court in so far as qua the payment of arrears, was stayed. 2. The counsels have been heard. After hearing arguments on 03.01.2012, the husband was given an opportunity to sort out certain matters. Thereafter again on 18.01.2012, the counsels were heard. 3. The wife had claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per month. She is aggrieved from the grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs...
Balkishan Sharma and Orthers Vs. Puran Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The Appellants impugns a judgment dated 13.05.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby a compensation of Rs.6,05,800/- was awarded for the death of Lalit Sharma who was aged 23 years at the time of the accident. 2. The contentions raised on behalf of the Appellants are: i) That the deceased’s mother was aged about 45 years but her age was taken 54 years by the Claims Tribunal without any material and a multiplier of 11 was applied instead of 13. ii) The deceased was a Graduate from Delhi University. He had good future prospects. The Tribunal erred in not granting any future prospects. iii) The Tribunal erred in fastening the liability of 30% of the compensation on the driver and owner of the Esteem Car bearing No.DL-6CE-3505. As per the evidence produced on record, there was no negligence on the part of the driver of Esteem Car in which the deceased Lalit Sharma was travelling. It is submitted that, in any case, it was a case of composi...
Arun Srivastava and Others Vs. Sanjay and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) C.M. APPL.15558/2011 (delay) There is a delay of 145 days in filing the Appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 145 days in filing the Appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. MAC.APP. 747/2011 1. This Appeal relates to the death of Prabha Srivastava, a housewife who was aged about 51 years on the date of the accident which took place on 12.08.2007. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on 24.08.2007. 2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (the Claims Tribunal) attempted to follow the second schedule, noticed Arun Kumar Aggarwal v. National Insurance Company, JT 2010 (7) SC 304; accepted the income of the deceased’s husband as Rs. 23,626/- took the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/- deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses to calculate the loss of dependency. After adding a sum of Rs. 3,87,113/- spent on treatment and notional sum under conventional head compensation of R...
Saroj Mehta and Others Vs. Chand Bair and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral) 1 Order impugned before this Court is the order dated 30.11.2009 whereby the first appellate Court had endorsed the finding of the Civil Judge dated 03.07.2008 wherein the application filed by the defendant under Order 11 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) had been dismissed. This was in an appeal filed before the RCT under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA). 2 Record shows that an eviction petition has been filed by the landlord against his tenant on the ground of Section 14 (1)(d) of the DRCA. Evidence of the landlord was completed on 29.04.2002 and thereafter the matter was fixed for the evidence of the respondent. On 21.08.2002, the affidavit by way of evidence of the respondent had been filed; a document (the document in dispute) was exhibited as Ex. RW-1/2. This document is a letter dated 24.04.1984 purported to have been returned by the landlord Jinesh Prasad Back...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »