Delhi Court May 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.
Director of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Vinod Kumar Mulani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J. 1. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter referred to as the “department”), by way of the present petition, has challenged the order dated 10.09.2010, passed by the learned ACMM granting bail to the respondent in the matter titled, “Vinod Kumar Mulani v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence” on the ground that the learned ACMM exceeded his jurisdiction in granting bail to the respondent. 2. The brief facts necessitating the disposal of the present petition are that, on the basis of an intelligence input about the operation of a syndicate involved in the fraudulent availment of duty drawback by exporting inferior quality garments in the name of bogus front firms, searches were conducted at various places including the residence of the respondent. Several incriminating material was collected from the residence of the respondent. Thereafter, several witnesses were examined by the department and their statements recorded under Section 10...
Vijendra Rana and Another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2012
V.K. SHALI, J. 1. These two bail applications of accused Vijendra Rana and Kulbhushan Parashar, bearing Nos.636 of 2012 and 1353 of 2010 respectively, have been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail in respect of F.I.R. registered by CBI vide RC No.2(A)/2006/CBI/ACU/IX, under Sections 3 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) read with Section 120-B and 409 IPC. 2. The petitioner, Vijendra Rana (A-4), was arrested on 6.4.2006 and is in judicial custody since 19.4.2006. Similarly, the petitioner, Kulbhushan Parashar (A-1), was arrested on 5.4.2006 and is also in judicial custody from the same date. The repeated attempts by both the petitioners to get the bail, both from the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Additional Sessions Judge as well as from the High Court, have not yielded any fruitful results. One significant order which has been passed in this regard and which is quite elaborate ...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Montu and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. The Appellant Oriental Insurance Company Limited impugned a judgment dated 06.12.2010 on the ground that the compensation of Rs.2,04,500/- awarded in favour of the first Respondent Montu was excessive and that the Appellant Insurance Company was not exonerated in spite of the fact that it was proved that the driver Alimuddin Sheikh (Respondent No.2) did not possess a valid driving licence and the owner Hari Kishan Sharma (respondent No.3) did not have a permit to drive the vehicle. 2. On 15.02.2003 at about 2:15 P.M. the first Respondent was proceeding on his bicycle towards Gian Mandir Road, Jaitpur when he was hit by a truck No.HR-38-C-7817 driven by the second Respondent in a rash and negligent manner. 3. The finding on negligence is not challenged by the Appellant Insurance Company. 4. The first Respondent was removed to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). He suffered very serious injuries in his abdomen, left shoulder, right eye and forehead. He u...
Asha Sharma and Others Vs. Sanimiya Vanijiya P.Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. Applying the principles of estoppel by pleading and acquiescence, suit filed by the appellants has been held to be barred and accordingly rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order impugned is dated August 20, 2008. The appellants are the successor in interest of Late Ms.Satyawati Sharma. 2. During her life time Satyawati Sharma filed a suit praying as under:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully and in the interest of justice prayed that:- (i) A decree of possession/eviction order directing the defendant No.1 to 3 to hand over the vacant possession of the entire ground floor and part of Ist floor as well as the big on the first floor and open spaces of 70-Golf Links, New Delhi as shown in the plant annexed be passed. (ii) A decree of recovery of amount of Rs.10,17,320/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from 1-9-96 till the date of recovery be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. (iii) A decree...
Harish Vs. Mangal Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. The Appellant seeks enhancement of compensation of Rs.2,81,738/- awarded to him for having suffered injuries in a motor accident which occurred on 30.05.2007. 2. In the absence of any Cross Appeal, the finding on negligence has become final between the parties. 3. Immediately after the accident, the Appellant was removed to G.T.B. Hospital. He remained admitted from 30.05.2007 to 04.06.2007. Since the Appellant suffered head injuries and injury to his left eye, he was admitted in Sant Parmanand Hospital and remained there from 12.06.2007 to 23.06.2007. The Appellant was issued a Disability Certificate by the Board of Doctors, G.T.B.Hospital disclosing 30% permanent vision impairment in relation to his left eye with post traumatic optic atrophy with macular scar. 4. On the date of the accident, the Appellant was a student of 11th standard. The Claims Tribunal took the notional income of the Appellant to be Rs.15,000/- per annum and awarded the following compensation...
Indian Commericail Pilots Association Vs. Air India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2012
ORDER 1. On the issue, the arguments of learned counsel for parties were heard on 01.05.2012 and matter was notified for orders on 04.05.2012 2. On the said date i.e. 04.05.2012, Mr.Darpan Wadhwa, learned counsel appeared and submitted that the petitioner had filed one CM No.3043/2012 for impleadment of „Indian Pilots Guild‟as respondentNo.3 and same may be allowed; before passing any order opportunity of hearing be given accordingly. 3. It is pertinent to mention here that notice in the above mentioned application has already been issued and served to the proposed respondent No.3. Despite service, they preferred not to appear, when arguments heard on the issue in question. 4. However, finding force in the submission of above named counsel, CM No.3043/2012 was allowed and above mentioned respondent No.3 were impleaded as respondent No.3. Submissions on behalf of newly impleaded respondent No.3 were heard on 08.05.2012 and instant application was notified for today for orde...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vivek Thakur and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. The Appellant impugns a judgment dated 07.09.2007 whereby in a Petition under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act preferred by the Respondents No.1 to 3, a compensation of Rs.4,31,900/- was awarded in their favour. 2. The Appellant’s (Insurance Company’s) grievance is that there were two vehicles involved in the accident i.e. a TSR bearing No.DL-1RE-3360 in which the deceased was travelling and a stationary bus bearing No.DL-1PB-1906 which was owned by Sukhchain Singh (the Respondent No.7) and was insured with the Appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. It is stated that although there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the TSR driver being solely liable, having rammed the TSR in the stationary bus, the Claims Tribunal erred in fastening the entire liability on the Appellant. It is further the contention of the Appellant Insurance Company that the Claims Tribunal had no power to ask the Insurance Company to satisfy the award in the firs...
Manohar Lal Suri Vs. S. Mohinder Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of Rs.5,25,288/- awarded to the Appellant for having suffered injuries in a motor accident which occurred on 29.01.2008. 2. I am not to go into the question of negligence as there is no challenge to the finding either by the owner, driver or the Insurer of the Tata truck No.JK-02-AC-9465 involved in the accident. 3. On 29.01.2008 at about 9:30 P.M. the Appellant was returning home on his bicycle. He was hit by the earlier said Tata truck from behind. The Appellant suffered head injury, crush injury on right arm, with compound fracture of shaft and neck on the right humerus apart from various other injuries on his body. He also lost two teeth. 4. The Appellant was removed to Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital, Jahangirpuri by the police and was then shifted to Max Hospital, Pitampura for better treatment. The Appellant remained there from 30.01.2008 to 05.02.2008. To save the Appellant’s life, his right arm above ...
Jan Chetna Vs. Ministry of Environment and Forests and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2012
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. 1. The present petition filed as a public interest litigation, impugns the order dated 31st December, 2008 of the National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA) dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the letter dated 26th December, 2007 granting environment clearance to respondent No.3 M/s Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd for setting up of integrated steel plant at Naharpali, Kharsia, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Notice of the petition was issued. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.3. The proceedings in this petition were adjourned sine die in pursuance of an order dated 29th July, 2009 of the Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (C) No. 677-678/2009 filed by respondent No.3. On 19th May, 2010, it was informed that the Transfer Petition had been disposed off by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, this petition was listed for hearing. Since respondent No.3 in its counter affidavit was also contesting the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to ente...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Ramesh Chand and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2012
A.K. SIKRI,J. 1. All these appeals raise a common question of law, which is quite important as this issue keeps recurring. The issue is: (1) What is the age of retirement of a driver working in Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC)? Incidental question would be as to whether a driver who is dismissed from service and the dismissal is held to be unjustified and illegal by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal and against that Award a writ petition is pending, how the case of extension of service would be determined having regard to the provision relating to the age of retirement? 2. All these cases pertain to drivers whose services were terminated by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the DTC). In all these cases Awards have been passed in favour of these drivers holding the termination bad in law and challenging those Awards, writ petitions filed by the DTC are pending. The applications were preferred by the workmen under Section 17B of the Act in their respective writ petitions in w...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »