Delhi Court May 2012 Judgments

Sikander Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) 1. Process of law was set into motion when on August 01, 2004 at 09:05 AM, DD No.6, Ex.PW-5/A was recorded at Police Post Bhati Mines to the effect that wireless message has been received from the Police Control Room from lady Ct.Pushpa informing that a husband and a wife were quarrelling at Sanjay Colony, Near Gate of a Zoo in Bhati Mines. 2. It may be highlighted that there is no zoological park at Bhati Mines but the Asola Wildlife Sanctuary extends till Bhati Mines. 3. As deposed to by SI Devender Yadav PW-7 and Ct.Ved Prakash PW-1, copy of DD No.6 was handed over to SI Devender Yadav for inquiry and accompanied by HC Mahender Singh (not examined) and Ct.Ved Prakash, the trio reached Sanjay Colony, Bhati Mines. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that on reaching Sanjay Colony, Bhati Mines they went to the house of the appellant where he was residing with his wife Ganga Bai (the deceased) and their children and found Ganga Bai lying dead as a conseque...

Court on Its Own Motion Vs. Dept. of Women and Child Development and O ...

Court: Delhi

A.K. SIKRI,J. 1. In this letter petition, a very serious issue touching upon he rights of juvenile delinquent is raised. It is pointed out that many times when the accused persons are arrested by the Police and even when they happen to be children, they are lodged in Tihar Jail and subjected to the hardship of Adult Criminal Justice System. This may happen due to sheer negligence, omission or even deliberately. In support of this plea, it is mentioned that under Right to Information Act, 2005, information was received by the applicant from Central Jail No.7 which discloses that during the period October, 2010 to August, 2011, 114 persons were shifted from Tihar Jail to Observation Homes after they were found to be juveniles. It is thus stated that without proper care being taken by the Police Authorities at the time of arrest to find out whether the concerned person is a juvenile or adult, they are lodged in the jails. It is further mentioned that generally from appearance of the perso...

D.T.C. Vs. Anil Kumar (Ex-driver)

Court: Delhi

P.K. BHASIN, J. 1. By way of this writ petition the petitioner, Delhi Transport Corporation has challenged the Award dated 03-02-04 of the Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Delhi in ID No. 152/01 whereby the respondent - workman, who was employed as Driver with DTC, had been ordered to be reinstated in service with full back wages and continuity of service after holding the punishment of his removal from service for availing excessive leave to be illegal. 2. The respondent - workman was charge-sheeted for unauthorized absence from duty for 147 days and after a departmental enquiry he was ordered to be removed from service by the management of DTC vide order dated 22nd September, 1992. The respondent-workman felt aggrieved with the punishment of removal from service awarded to him and, therefore, he raised an industrial dispute by approaching the labour authorities which, in turn, made a Reference to the Industrial Tribunal vide Reference dated 30th January, 2001 with the fol...

State of Nct of Delhi Vs. Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari

Court: Delhi

V.K. SHALI, J. 1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 28.8.2009 passed by Ms. Pinki, the Designated Court MCOCA/POTA/TADA (hereinafter referred to as ‘Designated Court’), dismissing the application of the petitioner under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C. seeking withdrawal of charges under Sections 3(2) and 3(4) of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (hereinafter referred to as MCOCA) read with Section 120-B of the IPC. It has also been prayed that a consequential order quashing the framing of the charges by the Designated Court be also passed. It may be pertinent to mention here that by the impugned order, the Designated Court had rejected the request of the petitioner seeking withdrawal of charges against the respondent/accused in respect of the aforesaid offences. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, on 4.4.2002, a case under Section 506 of the IPC was registered at PS:Greater Kailash, New Delhi by the Spec...

M.S. Sherawat and Others Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Court: Delhi

G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of Rs.9,45,703/- awarded for the death of Smt. Santosh who died in an accident which occurred on 04.12.2006. 2. The deceased was a self employed person working as a steno- typist. As per the Income Tax Return for the A.Y. 2006-07, she returned an Income Tax of Rs.2,12,000/-. Since her husband was also working, the Claims Tribunal following the Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court in A. Manavalagan v. A. Krishnamurthy and Ors., 2005 ACJ 1992 which was relied upon by this Court in Keith Rowe v. Prashant Sagar and Ors., 2011 ACJ 1734 held that where the husband and wife are working and the other legal heirs were not dependent, the Claimants would be entitled to a compensation towards loss to estate only to the extent of 1/3rd of the deceased’s income. The Claims Tribunal further made a deduction of 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses to award an overall compensation of Rs.9,45,703/-. 3. The ...

Sudeep Singh Sabharwal Vs. Shahnaz Arfi

Court: Delhi

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 11.4.2012 decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff/landlord filed for possession and mesne profits for the relief of possession on an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. 2. Before the trial Court and before this Court, the following is the undisputed position: (i) there is a relationship of landlord and tenant; (ii) the rate of monthly rent is Rs.7000/- i.e. more than Rs. 3,500/- taking the premises out of the protection of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and (iii) the registered lease deed dated 15.9.2008 which was executed for the suit premises for a period of two years expired on 15.9.2010. 3. Though no notice is required to be served where the lease period expires by efflux of time, yet, as a matter of abundant caution, the respondent/plaintiff served a notice of termination ...

Rakesh Gupta Vs. State of Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

M.L. MEHTA, J. 1. The present revision petition is preferred under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. assailing the order 31.03.2012 passed by the ld. ASJ (Fast Track Court) whereby the order dated 27.09.2011 passed by the ld. ASJ granting bail to the petitioner on the condition of furnishing bank guarantee of 50% of the alleged cheated amount in the Court was affirmed. 2. The case was lodged under Section 420, 506 IPC on 10.08.2011 by the complainant Mr. Jitender who is the Manager of M/s Nu Line Industries Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Tripulati Aluminum ltd. alleging that his companies had supplied aluminum wire rods to the petitioner’s company M/s Tanishka Industry. According to the complaint, the total value of the wire rods supplied to the petitioner amounts to Rs. 89,40,147/-. It has been alleged that the petitioner refused to make the payment for the material supplied to him and extended threats to the complainant when he demanded the payment. The petitioner was t...

Sunita Devi and Others Vs. Ram Niwas and Others

Court: Delhi

JUDGMENT 1. The appellants have challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.2,87,520/- has been awarded to them. The appellants seek enhancement of the award amount. 2. The accident dated 16th October, 1994 resulted in the death of Vinod Kumar. The deceased was survived by his widow, minor daughter and father who filed the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal. The deceased was aged 20 years at the time of the accident and was doing dairy business as well as agriculture. It was claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.14,000/- per month. However, in the absence of any documentary proof of income, the Claims Tribunal assumed the income of the deceased as Rs.2,150/- per month, deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased and applied the multiplier of 16 to compute the loss of dependency at Rs.2,75,520/-. The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards the funeral expenses. The total compensation ...

Minni Vs. High Court of Delhi Thr. R.G. New Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2012(2)KLT705(Del.H.C.)

S.P. Garg, J. (Open Court) 1. The Petitioner Ms.Minni impugnes the order dated 30.04.2011 of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-02, (North) Delhi by which she was directed to obtain permission of this Court as a condition precedent to proceed with the complaint case filed by her against an officer of Delhi Judicial Service alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 341/354/499/506 IPC. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered their contentions. It reveals that in the complaint case filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the Trial Court declined to proceed with the trial as it contained scandalous allegations against the Judicial Officer and the Petitioner had not obtained sanction/permission of this court. It further reveals that on 17.09.2011 this Court, on administrative side, declined to grant sanction for registering an FIR against the Judicial Officer observing that the allegations in the complaint case did not disclose comm...

Ganga Prasad and Another Vs. State

Court: Delhi

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) 1. Bailable warrants to secure presence of the appellants have not been served, but counsel as above who filed the appeals appears today on behalf of the appellants. 2. Arguments heard. 3. We dispose of the above-captioned appeals laying a challenge to the judgment dated April 17, 1999 passed by the Learned Trial Judge convicting appellants for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and order on sentence dated April 20, 1999 sentencing appellants to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine in sum of Rs.2,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 4. The prosecution case emerging at the trial, shorn of unnecessary details, is that on June 20, 1991 at around 06:15 AM i.e. in the morning, the appellants Ganga Prasad and Shiv Kumar (brothers), along with the co-accused Asha W/o Ganga Prasad; who has been acquitted by the Learned Trial Judge, burnt Smt.Sumitra @ Suman W/o Arun Kumar by setting her on fire using kerosene oil wi...