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.
RKDF Medical College Hospital and Research Centre and Another Vs. Unio ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2015
CM No. 23067/2015 (Exemption) 1. Allowed subject to just exceptions. WP(C) 9663/2015 and CM No. 23066/2015 (Stay) 2. Issue notice. 3. Mr Bhardwaj accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1, while Mr Singhdev accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.2. On steps being taken notice shall issue to respondent no.3. 4. It is the contention of the learned senior counsels for the petitioners that pursuant to the orders passed by the Supreme Court, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the time for admission has been extended in their case, till 10.10.2015. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the order dated 22.09.2015 passed by the Supreme Court (see page 211 of the paper book). 5. On the other hand, Mr Singhdev, learned counsel for respondent no.2/ MCI, argues that the cut-off date having been crossed, this petition cannot be entertained in any case, for academic year 2015-2016. There are also other contentions raised by Mr Singhdev including the fact that the Central Gov...
Playwell Impex (P) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2015
CM No.22818/2015 (for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) No. 9625/2015 3. The petition impugns the communication dated 17th September, 2015 of the respondent Insurance Company intimating the petitioner that its grievance complaint for repudiation of its claim for loss due to fire had been examined and the entire matter had been reviewed by the Grievance Review Committee of the respondent Insurance Company and the decision of repudiation of the claim was upheld. Axiomatically, the petitioner seeks mandamus to the respondent Insurance Company to release the insurance claim assessed by the surveyor. 4. The petitioner made a claim for loss of its goods by fire under a policy issued by the respondent Insurance Company. The respondent Insurance Company vide its communication dated 17th October, 2014 to the petitioner as under: This is in reference to your aforesaid claim in respect of reported fire loss at your basement godown situat...
M/s. G.D. Engineering Works Vs. Arvind Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2015
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the Award dated 16th November, 2013 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-XVI, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in ID No.286/2009 whereby the termination of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as workman ?) was held to be illegal and he was awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.2 lacs. 2. The workman claimed to be working with the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the management ?) as a Turner and alleged his illegal termination on 1st June, 2006. An industrial dispute was raised, with the result the Dy. Labour Commissioner vide reference dated 28th August, 2009 referred the following dispute for adjudication:- Whether services of Shri Arvind Kumar, S/o Sh. Virender Kumar have been illegally and/or unjustifiably terminated by the management; and if yes, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect. ? 3. The workman filed statement of claim stating therein that he was working with the management for th...
Rajesh and Others Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2015
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, for quashing of FIR No.66/2007 dated 23.01.2007, under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC, 1860 registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh, west district, Delhi on the basis of settlement arrived at between the complainant/respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Rajrani and the petitioners, namely, Sh. Rajesh (husband of the complainant), Smt. Ram Bai (mother-in-law of the complainant), Sh. Kali Charan (father-in-law of the complainant), Sh. Vishnu (brother-in-law of complainant), Sh. Gunthey (brother-in-law of complainant), Sh. Murrari (brother-in-law of complainant), Sh. Mahesh (brother-in-law of complainant) and Sh. Chimman (brother-in-law of complainant). 2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question by SI- Chhote Lal. 3. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submi...
Vikram and Another Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2015
Sanjiv Khanna, J. Oral: 1. Vikram (son of Mange Lal) and Gopal, in these connected appeals, impugn common judgment dated 24.02.2000 convicting them under Sections 396 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) for dacoity and murder of Kishan Miglani and Usha Miglani in the intervening night of 15th and 16th September, 1996 at G-85, Vikas Puri, Delhi. The appellants have also been convicted under Section 412 IPC for possessing stolen property. By order on sentence dated 06.03.2000, the two appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 396 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence under Section 412 IPC. The punishments would run concurrently and Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C., for short) would apply. 2. The impugned judgment also convicts Rajmal and Bikram (son of Bhagirath), who were similarly sentenced. However, the said Rajmal and Bikram (son of Bhagirath) have expired and t...
Satyawan Vs. UOI and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2015
Vipin Sanghi, J. (Open Court): 1. The present second appeal is directed against the order dated 16.07.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Central-07), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in RCA No.79/2013. By the impugned order, the first appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff to assail the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2013 passed in the appellant's Suit No.1567/2006, has been dismissed as being barred by limitation. The application preferred by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to seek condonation of 98 days in filing the first appeal has been rejected as not disclosing sufficient cause to explain the delay. 2. The appellant/ plaintiff was enrolled in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) as a Constable. He was charge-sheeted on the ground that he had left the Unit without prior approval and had not gone to Chandigarh as directed. A departmental inquiry followed, which found him guilty of misconduct. Accordingly, he was dismissed from service....
Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rinki and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2015
1. These two appeals are filed by the appellants seeking to impugn the Award dated 12.11.2013. The MAC.App.89/2014 is filed against the Legal Heirs of late Shri Nidhish Yadav while MAC.App.91/2014 is filed against the legal heirs of late Shri Ashok Chand Verma. 2. The brief facts which led to filing of the claim petition are that the appellant is the Airport Operator at the Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. i.e. Indira Gandhi International Airport. On 29.05.2009 a team of five persons who were employees of the appellant, were engaged in a fire fighting mock exercise and were deployed on a Airfield Crash Fire Tender ROSENBAUER. As part of the training procedure, they had to reach at a specified destination in 1 minutes. This exercise was to test their preparedness in the event of an accident. However, unfortunately on the way to the destination the Fire Tender met with an accident. Shri Nidhish Yadav and Shri Ashok Chand Verma suffered fatal injuries. Three other persons escaped wit...
Jhansi Orai Tollway Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2015
CMs No.22828/2015 and 22829/2015 (both for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The applications are disposed of. W.P.(C) NO.9628/2015 and CM No.22827/2015 (for stay) 3. The petition impugns the letter dated 3rd March, 2014 of the respondent No.2 National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) of termination of the Concession Agreement dated 5th February, 2013 entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 NHAI for operation and maintenance of Jhansi-Orai section stretch admeasuring 135.413 Km. of NH-25 in the State of Uttar Pradesh on Operation Management Transfer (OMT) basis. 4. The petition impugning the termination dated 3rd March, 2014 has come up for the first time today before this Court. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware of the said termination and has been informed of the same for the first time only on 22nd July, 2015 and the copy of the letter dated 3rd March, 2014 has been furnished to the petitioner on 11th Septemb...
Veer Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2015
Sanjiv Khanna, J. 1. Veer Singh by the impugned judgment dated 18th January, 2000 has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) for having committed murder of Praveen Kumar at about 11 P.M. on 4th March, 1996. The appellant-Veer Singh has also been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 for having used a sword to cause injuries on the upper part of pinna adjoining the temporal region of Praveen Kumar. 2. The factum that the deceased-Praveen Kumar had died a homicidal death is discernibly established and proved from the Medical Legal Report (Exhibit PW-24/A) recorded at the Hindu Rao Hospital on 4th March, 1996 at 11.50 P.M. The said patient Praveen Kumar was brought by one Rishi Kumar, who has deposed in the court as PW-7. The patient was unconscious, pulse was not palpable, pupils were dilated and the heart beat was absent. Praveen Kumar was declared as brought dead. Dr. V.P. Singh (PW-24) proved the said MLC, in the handwriting of Dr. ...
Sunder Kukreja and Others Vs. Mohan Lal Kukreja and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2015
CS (OS) No. 2050/2014 and IA Nos. 3967/2015, 9727/2015, 9728/2015 and 9951/2015 1. The Defendants, Mohan Lal Kukreja and Madan Lal Kukreja have filed their objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 ('the 1940 Act'), being IA Nos. 9728/2015 and 3967/2015 respectively, to an Award dated 26th May 2014 [the Award'] of the learned sole Arbitrator deciding, inter alia, the rights and obligations of the Plaintiffs and Defendants herein in relation to the partnership firm, D. R. Kukreja and Co. This judgment proposes to dispose of the said objections. Background facts 2. Plaintiffs No. 1, 2 and 3, i.e., Mr. Sunder Kukreja, Mr. Ram Chander Kukreja (since deceased) and Mr. Raj Kumar Kukreja and Defendants No. 1 and 2, i.e., Mr. Madan Lal Kukreja and Mr. Mohan Lal Kukreja, are all sons of late Mr. D.R. Kukreja. 3. The firm M/s. D.R. Kukreja and Co. was first constituted on 24th June 1969 with the following partners:i. Jetha Nand Kukrejaii. Sham Lal Kukrejaiii. Lekh Raj Kukr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »