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.
K.K. Aggarwal and Others Vs. Avanta Management Services (India) Pvt. L ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2012
G.S. SISTANI, J. ORAL: 1. Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for recovery of possession, arrears of rent, damages and mesne profits. 2. Summons in the suit were issued on 28.11.2011. Counsel for the defendant entered appearance on 27.1.2012, when four weeks’ time was granted to the defendant to file written statement. Neither written statement nor Vakalatnama has been filed on record till date. None appeared on behalf of defendant on 30.3.2012. None is present on behalf of defendant even today. Counsel for the plaintiff prays for a decree under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC. 3. The necessary facts, as per the plaint, to be noticed for disposal of the present suit, are that the plaintiffs are the owners/landlords of commercial premises bearing no.807, ad measuring 442 sq. ft. super area, situated at Wing ‘B’, Statesman House, B-148, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said premises’). Vide registered Lease Deed dated 20.3.2008 the said pre...
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Master Neeraj and A ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. MAC APP.544/2010 and MAC APP.574/2010 arise out of a common judgment 06.05.2010 whereby a compensation of Rs. 5,24,000/- was awarded in the Claim Petition No.287/2010 (in MAC APP.544/2010) and a compensation of Rs.5,21,181/- was awarded in the Claim Petition No.286/2010 (in MAC APP.574/2010). 2. A minor child Master Neeraj lost his parents and Loki Ram, a senior citizen aged 80 years lost his son Narottam Prasad Sharma and his daughter-in-law Smt. Indresh Sharma in a motor accident which took place on 23.01.2008. 3. By the impugned judgment, the Claims Tribunal while relying on the testimony of PW-2 Mukesh Kumar Sharma, an eye witness to the accident, coupled with the registration of a criminal case against the driver of the U.P. State Roadways Bus No.UP-53-AT-0152 held that the accident was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of its bus driver. 4. It was claimed that deceased Narottam Prasad Sharma was working as a Purohit and astrologer an...
National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Gaje Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2012
(ORAL) 1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby the compensation of Rs.37,10,000/- has been awarded to respondent Nos.1 and 2. The appellant seeks reduction of the award amount. 2. The accident dated 8th February, 2001 resulted in the death of Saurabh Chauhan. The deceased was aged 11 years at the time of the accident and was a student of 5th standard. The deceased was survived by his parents who filed the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.37,10,000/- to the claimants. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged at the time of hearing of this appeal that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is highly exorbitant. The Claims Tribunal has assumed the income of Rs.30,000/- in respect of the child without any basis. 4. The father of the deceased appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and deposed that the deceased was a brilliant student of 5th standard of D.L.D.A.V. Model School, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. The repor...
Union of India Vs. Peeco Hydraulic Pvt Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2012
1. These are objections by Peeco Hydraulic Private Limited (‘PHPL’) under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (‘Act’) to an Award dated 18th January 1991 passed by the sole Arbitrator in the disputes between the parties arising out of an acceptance of a tender by the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposal (‘DGSandD’) issued on 23rd June 1980 whereunder PHPL was to supply an Oil Hydraulic Spring Testing Machine. 2. According to the objector, Clause 14 of the tender documents contained a question whether the tenderer agreed to sole arbitration by an officer of Ministry of Law to be appointed by the DGSandD as provided in Clause 24 of the General Conditions of Contract (‘GCC’) Form DGSandD- 68 (Revised). It was stated that omission to answer the question would be deemed as acceptance to the Clause. PHPL answered the question in the negative. 3. On 7th August 1992, the DGSandD cancelled the tender and invited fresh tenders i...
Dinesh Kumar and Others Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2012
A.K. SIKRI (ACJ.) 1. In all these writ petitions challenge is to the constitutional validity of Clause 26.4 of the Parole/Furlough: Guidelines, 2010. These Guidelines are approved by the Lt. Governor, Govt. of NCT of Delhi which are applicable in case of convicts i.e. those who have been convicted by a competent court under various laws and are undergoing sentencing in prison. The purpose of the Guidelines is to regulate applications for parole and furlough and to ensure that they are considered in a fair and transparent manner. Separate provisions for regular parole as well as furlough are made in these Guidelines. Insofar as grant of furlough is concerned which is the subject matter of these writ petitions, Clause 24 states that a prisoner who is sentenced to 5 years or more of rigorous imprisonment and has undergone imprisonment for 3 years or more period excluding remission, can be released on furlough. A prisoner is entitled 7 weeks of furlough in a year. The first spell can be of...
Ravi Kumar JaIn Vs. Dda and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2012
A.K. Sikri, Acting Chief Justice: 1. Before we point out the nature of orders passed in the writ petitions filed by the petitioner and thereafter in the applications filed by the petitioner for recall of those orders, we briefly trace out the history of the present litigation. 2. The appellant claims to be in possession of land measuring 19 bhigas and 18 biswas in Khasra No. 1569 in the revenue estate of village Mehrauli, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi. As per the averments he owned 18 bhiga and 10 biswas of land and in respect of remaining 1 bhiga and 8 biswas he entered into an agreement to sell with the co-owners of the said land and has obtained possession from the vendors under the said agreement to sell. The dispute today has arisen about the way/passage for accessing the aforesaid land of the appellant. The way/passage of the appellant is through the main road where a gate has been constructed by the respondent no.3 which further leads to another gate also constructed by respondent no.3...
Rajesh Kumari @ Rajesh Devi and Others Vs. Jai Prakash and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2012
(ORAL) 1. The appellants have challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.4,50,600/- has been awarded to her. The appellant seeks enhancement of the award amount. 2. The accident dated 17th February, 1995 resulted in the death of Hari Prasad. The deceased was survived by his widow and three minor children who filed the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal. The deceased was aged 32 years at the time of the accident and was working as a Beldar with CPWD earning Rs.2,157/- per month. The Claims Tribunal took the income of the deceased as Rs.3,600/- deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 15 to compute the loss of dependency at Rs.4,32,000/-. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.6,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.4,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.8,600/- towards expenditure on treatment. The total compensation awarded was Rs.4,50,600/-. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged following grounds at the time of ...
Sneh Lata Gulliya Vs. R.K.Gupta and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2012
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. Oral: C.M.No.________/2012 1. An application has been filed in Court today by Sh.Vijay Gupta Advocate, calling upon us to recuse from the matter. 2. The application is taken on record. 3. The registry is directed to number the application. 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 5. The application seeking recusal, in paragraph 1 states that since certain developments have taken place during the listing of the case before DB-IV i.e. the present Division Bench, the respondents are making a prayer for us to recuse. 6. Now, it is stated in paragraph 1 that ‘certain developments have taken place during the listing’ of the case before this Court. 7. If we understand the sentence to mean that there is contrivance, in the appeal being listed before Division Bench-IV, we would highlight that the roster allocation requires all Regular First Appeals against decisions by learned Single Judges on the original side of this Court to be heard by the present Divisi...
Shashi Kant JaIn Vs. Tilak Raj Salooja and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2012
Indermeet Kaur, J. Oral: 1. Impugned judgment is dated 03.04.2010; eviction petition filed by the landlord Tilak Raj Salooja and another against his tenant Shashi Kant Jain seeking his eviction under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) from the disputed premises i.e. the shop located on the ground floor of property bearing No. E-175, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007 had been decreed; the application filed by the tenant seeking leave to defend had been declined. 2. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord on the ground of bonafide requirement; premises comprising of a shop had been let out to the tenant from where he is running a readymade garment store under the name and style of ‘M/s Sheetal Readymade’; monthly rent was Rs.293/- exclusive of electricity charges. Contention in the eviction petition is that the premises are required bonafide by the petitioners for running a business by petitioner No. 1; petitioner No. 1 has a...
Mohan Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2012
ANIL KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner has sought a direction to the respondents to constitute an Independent Medical Board for his medical examination and has also sought direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to join the Indian Navy-01/2012 batch in case the petitioner is declared fit. 2. The petitioner has contended that he is a young and bright student, and that he is from a very humble background. The petitioner had passed his Matriculation Examination in the year 2008 from the BSEB, Patna by securing first division. The petitioner, thereafter, passed the Intermediate Examination in the year 2010 from BSEB, Patna by scoring 66% in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 18th June, 2011 for enrollment as MR/NMR 01/2012 batch in Indian Navy, the petitioner had applied for the same. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued a call up letter-cum-admit card which was for examination scheduled for 4th October, 2011. The petitioner had passed the writte...
- ‹ Prev
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 43
- 44
- Next ›
- Last »