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.
Sh. Manoj Tomar Vs. Neena Khatter and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral): 1. This suit which is filed for recovery of Rs.1,57,30,430/- is listed for framing of issues. In my opinion, issues do not arise and this suit has to be decreed in view of the pleadings of the defendants which do not make any averment that defendants have appropriated the amount of Rs.1,35,00,000/- paid by the plaintiff to the defendants under the Agreement to Sell dated 26.4.2013 towards any losses caused to the defendants. 2. The facts of the case are that with respect to the property measuring 7 Bighas and 2 Biswas in Khasra No.256/2(4-15), 257/1(3-12), 257/2 Min (1-0-1/2), 258 Min (2-15), situated in the area of Village Sawda, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property ?) parties entered into an Agreement to Sell on 26.4.2013. Total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.8,91,69,271/-, of which plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.1,35,00,000/- to the defendants. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that defendants had forged and fabricated documents that the lan...
Anil @ Balbir and Others Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
1. These appeals are directed against the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 27.11.2012 and 17.12.2012 respectively wherein the appellants namely Anil @ Balir, Vijay and Vinay Kumar stood convicted under Section 376 (2)(g) of the IPC i.e. for the offence of gang rape. Each of them had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 3 years. Accused Anil @ Balir and Vinay had also been convicted under Sections 506/34 of the IPC for which the sentence imposed upon them was SI 2 years and a fine of Rs.5,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI 6 months. Accused Vijay was also convicted under Sections 366/341 of the IPC for which the sentence imposed upon him was SI 10 years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for 3 years for the two offences respectively. Benefit of Section 428 of the Cr.PC had been granted to the appellants. 2. The version ...
Daya Shankar Gupta and Another Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
1. These appeals are directed against the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 31.10.2011 wherein appellants Daya Shankar Gupta and Sanjay Shah stood convicted under Section 20 (b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (in short NDPS Act). Each of them had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for a period of 6 months. Benefit of Section 428 of the Cr.PC had been granted to the convicts. 2. Nominal rolls of the appellants reflect that as on date, each of them has undergone incarceration of 6 years and 4 months; remission being inapplicable to a convict under the NDPS Act. 3. The version of the prosecution is that pursuant to a secret information received on 07.07.2009 (reduced into writing and forwarded to its senior officer), a raiding party was constituted comprising of PW-3 (HC Sanjiv Kumar), PW-6 (HC Kanwal Singh) and PW-10 (SI Bhagwan Singh). They reached ...
Nasir Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
CM No.23287/2015 (for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 9717/2015 3. The petition impugns the order dated 11th September, 2015 of the Maintenance Tribunal for Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen, North-West District, Kanjhawala, Delhi constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 issuing the following directions in a petition before it by the mother of the petitioner: In view of the above, the tribunal directs the concerned area SHO to ensure that the entry of the senior citizen in the property owned by the petitioner should be peaceful. The petitioner will occupy the First Floor of the house and recover rental income from the other two floors. Further, the respondents are hereby directed to maintain peace at the house and not to disturb the applicant on day to day activities since the applicant is an old aged person and in her lean years she must have psychological support and care. ...
Bal Bharati Public School Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Whether the notification issued by the Central Government under the first proviso to Section 6 of the EmployeesProvident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ( ˜the Actfor short) specifying an establishment or class of establishments to be included therein will survive the subsequent amendment/s made in the first proviso amending the rate at which such establishment or class of establishments will be required to make contribution to the Fund, is the question that arise for consideration in this appeal by Letters Patent. 2. Learned Single Judge of this Court, by the judgment dated August 19, 2015 assailed before us, dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant-writ petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated August 02, 2000 passed by the Provident Fund Commissioner whereby the appellant was directed to deposit its contribution to the Fund @ of 12% per month with effect from September 22, 1997. Appellant also sought for the quashing of ...
Krishan Gopal and Others Vs. ONGC and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The controversy involved in the present intra-court appeal relates to regularization of services of (fifteen) contingent employeesengaged by Oil and Natural Gas Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ONGC'). 2. ONGC issued Standing Orders on July 15, 1962 concerning contingent employees employed in various units of ONGC, the relevant portion whereof reads as under:- 1. Application and date of commencement: These orders shall come into force on 15.7.1962 and shall apply to all workmen called contingent employees employed in the various units of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission). They shall not apply to regular employee of the Commission to whom Fundamental and Supplementary Rules, Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, Revised Leave Rules and Civil Service Regulations have been extended.2. (i) Classification of Workmen: The contingent e...
Jogeshwar and Another Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
Sanjiv Khanna, J. Oral: 1. These two appeals by Bihari Lal and Jogeshwar challenge their conviction by the impugned judgment dated 19th November, 1999 for murder of Parmanand in the intervening night between 23rd and 24th March, 1997. The said judgment arises out of charge-sheet filed by the police in FIR No. 225/1997 registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar. 2. By order on sentence dated 20th November, 1999, the two appellants have been sentenced to imprisonment for life, fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C., for short) would apply. 3. We accept the prosecution version that the deceased Parmanand had suffered a homicidal death. It has been proved beyond doubt that the dead body of an unknown person was found lying near a drain at Paschim Vihar, at about 10.10 A.M. on 24th March, 1997. The said factum is deposed to by Constable Dilbagh Singh (PW-10...
Subhash Chand Sethi Vs. J.K. Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 20th May, 2015 whereby the prayer of the petitioner to amend the written statement has been declined, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that impugned order may be set aside and the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC may be allowed. 2. On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that the petitioner is owner of the suit property and had been in uninterrupted possession of the same prior to the year 2001 till date. The physical possession of the suit property was never handed over at any point of time to Shri B.D.Arora. The trial in the suit is at the initial stage as the respondent/plaintiff is under cross-examination. When the case was listed for cross-examination of the respondent/plaintiff, with a view to avoid any technical objection during cross-examination, the amendment application to seek amendment of written statement has bee...
Bank of India Vs. Harish Chander Sah
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
Oral: 1. The impugned Award of 7th March, 2006 directs reinstatement of respondent-workman with immediate effect while awarding punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect within one month from the publication of the Award. 2. The brief background of this case, as noticed in this petition, is that the respondent-workman was an employee in the subordinate cadre of petitioner-Bank and was last posted at Kamla Nagar Branch of the Bank. On 16th October, 1996, a charge-sheet was served upon respondent-workman alleging misuse of India Card facility extended to him by the petitioner- Bank and thus, had acted pre-judicially to the interest of petitioner-Bank in terms of Clause 19.5(j) of Bipartite Settlement of 19th October, 1996. 3. In the departmental proceedings, respondent-workman was found guilty of charge of spending Rs. 77,359.57 as against his sanctioned limit of Rs. 10,000/- during the period from 14th March, 1996 up to 16th July,1996. The inquiry proceedings conc...
Pushpender Singh and Others Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
R.K. Gauba, J. 1. By judgment dated 25.11.2014 in sessions case no. 83/2009, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (North) found the appellant-Ravinder (Crl.A.287/2015) guilty and convicted him for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for the murder of his wife Meena. By the same judgment, the said appellant-Ravinder along-with four others viz. Pushpender, Phoolwati, Babu Lal and R.Harshinder (appellants in Crl.A.No.160/2015), were held guilty on the charge for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B/498-A/34 IPC, committed against Meena. The said four appellants (Crl.A.No.160/2015) had also stood trial with appellant Ravinder on the charge under Section 302/34 IPC, of which they were acquitted. By order dated 08.01.2015, the learned trial court awarded imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.25,000/- to Ravinder (A-1). Each of the appellants was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for ten years with fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offences under Section ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »