Delhi Court October 2015 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.
R.N. Rattan Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2015
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. During arguments in the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant handed over a written note comprising four pages bearing date October 13, 2015 and said that arguments would be restricted to the said written note, which forms the basis of the present decision. 2. In harmony with the said written note learned counsel for the appellant argued four points in support of the appeal. The first point urged was that relevant documents demanded on February 09, 1998 and thereafter on April 22, 1998 and May 04, 1998 were not supplied and as a result prejudice has been caused to the appellant. The second point urged was that the Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal filed by the appellant against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing appellant from service without any application of mind evidenced by the cryptic order penned in the file by the Appellate Authority which reads: concur with the order of Disciplinary Authority and do not wish to inter...
Mahipal and Others Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2015
R.K. Gauba, J. 1. The spectre of "custody death" raises its ugly head yet again in the case at hand, bringing under cloud the claim of our polity that the State guarantees, to one and all, a civil society truly wedded to the normative of rule of law. 2. The four appellants stood trial in the court of additional sessions Judge in Sessions Case no. 73/96 on the basis of the report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC"), submitted on conclusion of investigation into the first information report ("FIR") no. 72/92 of the police station Welcome, on the charge for offences punishable under section 342 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"), section 330 read with section 34 IPC and section 302 read with section 34 IPC, the gravamen being that, in furtherance of their common intention, they had wrongfully confined Darshan Singh, after having picked him up on the night intervening 10th and 11th of March 1992 from his house no. K- 463 New Seelampur, De...
Swift Initiative Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dilip Chhabria Design Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2015
1. This is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in which the petitioner has sought the following reliefs against the respondent: - A. Pass an ad-interim ex-parte order restraining the Respondent and all its agents, employees, representatives and assigns from making any sales whatsoever in the territories of NCT of Delhi, Chandigarh, Ludhiana, Lucknow and NOIDA except through the Petitioner, B. Pass an ad-interim ex-parte order restraining the Respondent and all its agents, employees, representatives and assigns from making any sales to persons who are residents of the NCT of Delhi. ? 2. Factual matrix 2.1. The respondent is engaged in the business of designing and modifying various models of cars and manufacturing a sports car known as D.C. Avanti'. 2.2. Vide five separate Franchise agreements all dated 27th September, 2013, the respondent appointed the petitioner as its franchise in respect of five territories, namely, Lucknow, Noida, Gurgaon, Lud...
Surender Kumar Sharma Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2015
1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.') has been filed for quashing the order dated 07.08.2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, thereby the police was directed to make further investigation of the case. Further seeks directions thereby quashing the FIR No.55/2002 registered at Police Station Farsh Bazar, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 380/457/448/506/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as IPC') and emanating proceedings thereto. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.10.1946, father of the petitioner Late Sh. Narender Nath Sharma had filed a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the property bearing Municipal No.476-A, measuring 280 square yards, situated at Teliwara, Shahdara, Delhi, against late Sh. Jagdish Saran and Others, in the court of Senior Subordinate Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi, which was regist...
DTC Vs. Anant Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2015
1. The petitioner/Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as corporation') has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 4th October, 2007 and Award dated 22nd May, 2010 passed by the Labour Court in ID No. 202/08/96. By the first order dated 4th October, 2007, the Labour Court decided the preliminary issue with regard to legality and validity of the domestic inquiry conducted by the petitioner in favour of the respondent and by the subsequent Award dated 22nd May, 2010, the reference made by the appropriate Government on 13th November, 1996, with regard to removal of respondent from service was answered in favour of the respondent by holding that the order of removal dated 20th January, 1995 suffers the principle of natural justice and the charges against the respondent/workman were not proved. As a result, respondent was directed to be reinstated in the same post with continuity of service and a sum of Rs...
M/s. SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Somdatt Builders Pvt. Ltd. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2015
1. By a notification dated September 17, 1964 establishments of Engineers, Engineering Contractor which were not exclusively engaged in building and construction activity were brought within the purview of the Employees Provident Fund and (Miscellaneous) Provisions Act, 1952. By a subsequent notification dated September 23, 1980, the building and construction establishments were also brought within the purview of the Act with effect from October 31, 1980. By a notification dated November 01, 1990, Para 26(2) of the Provident Fund (Miscellaneous) Provisions Scheme, 1952 was amended. The amendment reads as under:- After this paragraph come into force, in a factory or other establishment, every employee employed in or in connection with the work of that factory or establishment other than excluded employee who has not become a member already shall be entitled and required to become a member of the fund from the date of joining the factory or establishment. ? 2. A writ petition was filed i...
GE Capital Services India Vs. Dr. K.M. Veerappa Reddy and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2015
Oral: I.A.Nos.3586/2013 (U/o XXXVII R 3(5) CPC), 16124/2013 (U/o XXXVII R 3(5) CPC), 3116/2014(U/o VII R 11 CPC) and 10097/2015 (U/o XXXVII R 3(5) CPC) 1. By this Order I am disposing of the three leave to defend applications filed by the defendant nos.1 to 3 in the suit. Leave to defend applications are under Order XXXVII Rule 3 sub-Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The suit is a suit for recovery of Rs.1,06,89,531.40. 2. Before I turn to the facts of the present case, and pass the present order allowing the leave to defend applications, I must mention certain disturbing and disconcerting facts. It is found that in many cases, which come up in this Court, though the cases are pleaded to have been filed as falling under Order XXXVII CPC, ex facie, the suits ought not to have been filed by these litigants under Order XXXVII CPC. Filing of suits as Order XXXVII suits, though the same are not covered under Order XXXVII CPC result in wastage of precious judicial time, and ...
Gaurav Shukla Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2015
Oral: 1. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.0848/2015 registered under Sections 376/494/495/506 IPC at PS K.M.Pur. Status report is on record. Bail is opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant. 2. FIR in this case has been registered on the basis of written complaint given by the complainant X(assumed name) on 15.07.2015. As per the complaint, Xcame in contact with the petitioner, an under-training IRS Officer, through a family friend S.P.Singh, to guide her in the preparation for civil services in February, 2014 at Delhi. They remained in touch on face-book and mobile internet thereafter. When the petitioner proposed her for marriage on whatsapp, she told him to contact her parents. On 15.03.2014, the petitioner came to meet her parents and a meeting took place at the residence of one Ashok Kapoor, 915 Nehru Road, Arjun Nagar. Ashok Kapoor advised them to wait for marriage and let the petitioner complete his training. The petitione...
Rajendra Singh Vs. Director of Education and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2015
Mukta Gupta, J. 1. Rajendra Singh joined D.C.Arya Senior Secondary School, Lodhi Road, (in short the school') on August 20, 1964 as Grade-II teacher for teaching drawing subject. In the course of his employment he also completed his post-graduation in Sociology. On February 07, 1990 a charge sheet was served on him pursuant to which he was compulsorily retired from service under Rule 117 (b)(ii) of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (in short DSER'). After charge sheet was served a writ petition was filed by Rajendra Singh being W.P.(C) No.1679/1990 which was dismissed being premature. Pursuant to the penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed vide order dated March 09, 1994 Rajendra Singh preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2869/1994 which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated September 05, 2011. Hence the present appeal. 2. Initially Shri R.G.Gupta was appointed as Inquiry Officer who after some time expressed his inability to continue and thus Mrs.K.Upadhyaya was appo...
Ram Kumar Pathak and Others Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2015
1. All the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Ram Kumar Pathak, (appellant in Criminal Appeal No.285/2011), Shobran Pal and Ramesh Pal (appellants in Criminal Appeal no.897/2011) have challenged the judgment and order of conviction dated 11.02.2011 and 15.02.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (North-West-04), Rohini, Delhi, in Sessions case no.75/2009, arising out of FIR No.807/2006 (PS Uttam Nagar), whereby they have been convicted under Sections 308/34 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four years, fine of Rs.7,000/- and in default of payment of fine, a further Simple Imprisonment of 7 months, with the benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.') accruing to them. 3. Durvesh Singh (appellant in Criminal Appeal No.513/2011), has on the other hand, challenged the judgment on the ground that from the evidence adduced during the course of trial, the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »