Delhi Court April 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.
Farid Qureshi and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2012
ORDER 1. Apart from petitioners being in arrears of license fee, bonafide necessity/space crunch in President’s Estate, New Delhi, is the reason disclosed by the contesting respondent in the eviction petition but in the Notice under Section 4 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 issued by the Estate Officer, the reason to seek petitioners’ eviction from the shops/residential premises allotted under License Agreements, is that the petitioners are in arrears of license fee and upon expiry of notice period, their possession upon Shop Nos.2 to 7, and Quarter Nos.75 to 80, in Block 13; Shop-cum-Quarter No.96 to 98, G-Point; and Shop/Garage No.12/4 and Quarter No.12/6, in President’s Estate Market, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the subject premises), is unauthorized. 2. Eviction proceedings were initiated against the petitioners in the year 2003, in pursuance to Notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Oc...
All India Defence Services Advocates Association Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2012
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J: 1. The petitioner All India Defence Services Advocates Association claims to be an association of practicing advocates who have at some point of time or the other served the defence forces. The petitioner in or about the year 1999 applied to the respondent no.2 Registrar of Societies (ROS), Delhi for being incorporated as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The respondent no.2 ROS however vide its letter dated 22nd December, 2000 to the respondent no.1 Ministry of Food and Consumer Affairs, Government of India sought a clarification as to whether the name of the petitioner attracted the provisions of para 7 of the Schedule of the Emblem and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. The respondent no.1 Ministry of Food and Consumer Affairs vide its letter dated 14th May, 2001 informed the petitioner that the proposed name “All India Defence Services Advocates Association” misleads the general public indicating “serving Defen...
Skyhawk Educational and Welfare Society (Regd.) and Another Vs. Direct ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2012
MANMOHAN SINGH, J: 1. By this order, I shall dispose of the application being I.A. No.5509/2011 filed by the counter-claimant/defendant No.3 under Order VI, Rule 17 and Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC. 2. The brief facts are that the plaintiffs have filed the above-mentioned suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction against the present defendant No.3/counter-claimant and others, on the premise that plaintiff No.1 is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the said Society by virtue of a resolution dated 20.04.2008 expelled the defendant No.3/counter-claimant from the its membership. 3. Defendant No.3/counter-claimant has filed his written statement as well as the counter-claim thereby controverting the claim made by the plaintiffs. Defendant No.3 has also questioned the true status and position of plaintiff No.1 as a society to run as an educational institution. 4. The issues were framed on 18.05.2010 in the main suit. The plaintif...
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs. M/S Telephone Cables Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2012
MANMOHAN SINGH, J: 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the order dated 29.05.2009 passed by the Sole Arbitrator in a dispute between the parties. Briefly stated, the facts of the case can be summarized in the following manner. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner are, that on 30.11.1994 a tender bearing No.14021/MT (MMS) was floated by the Department of Telecommunication (hereinafter referred to as DoT) for procurement of PIJF cables, opened on 24.01.1995. The procurement against the tender was for two years from the date of issue of 1st advance purchase order. Supplies by all the successful bidders were to be made at L-1 rates. 3. On 22.01.1997, the letter of intent for 40 LCKM cables was issued to the respondent wherein it was stated that “prices of PIJF Cables for the purpose of obtaining present quantity will be provisional till applicable prices are available and shall be cal...
Sattar Sheikh and Another Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anoth ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2012
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J: 1. The two petitioners being husband and wife, by this writ petition inter alia claim compensation in the sum of Rs.15,00,000/- from the respondents MCD and the Police for the death of their minor son Mohd. Asif aged about nine years owing to the negligence of the respondents. It is the case of the petitioners that their said son died on 4th January, 2007 by falling in an open manhole in a vacant plot meant for Sulabh Shauchalaya situated near Nissariya Masjid Jhuggi, D-Block, New Seema Puri, Delhi, near the house of the petitioners. Negligence is averred on the part of the MCD in not covering the manhole inspite of the same being situated in front of a populated residential area inhabited also by children. It is claimed that the deceased was studying in Class-V in a Madarsa and the petitioner No.1 being the father of the deceased works as a mason earning Rs.6,000/- to Rs.7,000/- per month. Notice of the petition was issued. Since the petitioners had themselves n...
Baby Anjum Thr. Her Natural Guardian and Another Vs. the Chief Executi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2012
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J: 1. The present petition seeks compensation of ` 10 lacs for the injury (amputation of hand) suffered by the petitioner No.1 (aged 4 years) allegedly owing to electrocution attributable to the negligence of the respondent. The petitioner no.2 is the father of the petitioner no.1. Notice of the petition was issued. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent averring that the writ petition is not the appropriate remedy for the relief claimed of compensation. Reliance in this regard is placed on Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd Vs. Smt Sukamani Das (1999) 7 SCC 298 and the judgments of this Court in WP(C) 5016/2002 titled Smt. Ram Wati Vs. BSES, Yamua Power Ltd and other connected petitions decided on 20th July, 2007 and in WP(C) No. 1108/2001 titled Shri Dharam Pal Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation decided on 14th January, 2008. 2. Per contra, the counsel for the petitioner has relied on (i) H.S.E.B. Vs. Ram Nath (2004) 5 SCC 793 where after noticin...
Rakesh and Another Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2012
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J: 1. The two petitioners being husband and wife, by this writ petition inter alia claim compensation in the sum of `20,00,000/- from the respondents Govt. of NCT of Delhi and the MCD for the death of their minor son Sagar aged about three and a half years owing to the negligence of the respondents. It is the case of the petitioners that their said son died on 3rd March, 2006 by falling in the uncovered sewer/drain at the intersection of the lanes near the house of the petitioners. Negligence is averred on the part of the respondent no. 2 MCD in not covering the sewer/drain inspite of the same being situated in front of a populated residential area inhabited also by children. It is claimed that the petitioner No.1 being the father of the deceased runs a ‘kabari’ shop and earns `6,000/- per month. 2. Notice of the petition was issued. At one stage, PWD was orally sought to be impleaded as a party, however no steps were taken for the same. Counter affidavi...
Satya Prakash and Another Through Lrs. Vs. Ghasi Ram Goel and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2012
ORDER 1. Contesting parties in this appeal had sought reference under Section 30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for apportionment of compensation in respect of 24 bighas and 4 biswas of land located in khasra numbers 1627 (3-18), 1637/2 (2-8), 1642/3/2(00-5), 1645(4-16), 1652/1(2-7), 1653(4-16) and 1654 (5-14) in the revenue estate of Village- Nangal Dewat, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the 'subject land'), which stands decided against the appellants vide impugned order of 15th February, 1987, wherein appellants were referred to as Interested Parties No. 3 and 4 and the first respondent, as Interested Party No.1, whereas respondents No. 2 to 7 were referred as successors in interest of Interested Party No.2 (hereinafter referred to as I.Ps). 2. The finding returned in the impugned order against the appellants of their having lost the bhumidari rights in respect of the subject land, in view of the revenue record i.e khasra girdawari and khatoni of 1970-71, being in favour of...
Shiv Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2012
SURESH KAIT, J: 1. Vide instant appeal, the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment dated 29.05.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (East) FTC, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi whereby he was held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 304B Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Also challenged the order on sentence dated 30.05.2009 whereby he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498A Indian Penal Code, 1860 and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for three months. He is further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence punishable under Section 304B Indian Penal Code, 1860. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr. P.C. was also extended to him. 3. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the present appellant had already deposited the fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- imposed ...
Dr. Deepak Kem Vs. Jamia Millia Islamia University and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2012
S. RAVINDRA BHAT C.M. APPL. 2262/2012, 2263/2012 and 2264/2012 For the reasons mentioned in the applications, C.M. Appl. 2262/2012, 2263/2012 and 2264/2012 are allowed. LPA 92/2012 and C.M. APPL. 2261/2012 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 16-9-2011, in a writ petition preferred by him (W. P. (C) 4918/2011) impugning an order dated 13-6-2011, removing him from the service of the respondent, the Jamia Milia Islamia Univeristy (hereafter “Jamia”). The removal order had given effect to the resolution dated 31-05-2011 of the Executive Council („EC’) of Jamia. The petition had also challenged the disciplinary proceedings initiated pursuant to a Memorandum by the Vice Chancellor („VC’) of Jamia, dated 2nd March, 2010. 2. The Appellant was a senior lecturer from 7th March 2002 to 4th January 2007 when he was selected as a Reader in the Centre for Culture, Media and Governance („Centre...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »