Delhi Court December 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.
Ravi @ Golu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-2015
1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. appellant seeks setting aside of order of conviction dated 27.11.2013, whereby he was held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 307/309 IPC. 2. Further seeks directions thereby setting aside the order on sentence dated 29.11.2013, whereby he was sentenced to undergo SI for 5 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 307 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo SI for 1 year and three months. For the offence punishable under Section 309 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo SI for one year with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo SI for three months. 3. Vide DD No. 20A, information was received at PS-Mangol Puri that a man had burnt a lady just ahead of Deepali Chowk, near Pitam Pura, Delhi. The statement of injured was recorded and registered above noted case against the appellant. 4. On completion of investigation, charge-shee...
Senge Himalayan Ceramics Vs. Shri Ram and Company
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-2015
1. The plaintiff has filed the suit for infringement, permanent injunction, restraining passing off and rendition of accounts against the defendant. Relevant facts of the case as per the plaint 2. The plaintiff claims that he is the proprietor of the Proprietorship firm "SENGE HIMALAYAN CERAMICS" dealing in Tea / Coffee mugs, Tea Cup Saucer, Bowls, Hotelwares, Handicrafts, etc. Since the plaintiff's forefathers are from Tibet, the plaintiff as a child had grown up with the Tibetan mythology and has been very fond of the same and its beliefs. As per the Tibetan mythology, the word 'SENGE' means an auspicious and fearless snow lion. 3. It is alleged that the plaintiff being inspired by the concept and strength of SENGE adopted and conceived the mark SENGE with the device of a fearless lion (hereinafter referred to as the "plaintiff's said trademark/logo") in relation to his business of tours and travels in the year 2000 in the name and style of "SENGE TRAVEL and TOURS", registered on 7th...
Kumar Saurabh Vs. University of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-2015
1. By this writ petition the only grievance articulated by the petitioner, is that, despite securing the highest marks in M.A. (Hindi) course (General), he has not been conferred the Professor Savitri Sinha Smriti Swarn Padak and Maithili Sharan Gupta Purashkar. 1.1 The petitioner states that he had secured admission in the aforementioned course with Hindu College (which is effectively represented by respondent no.3), after having secured a graduation degree from Shaheed Bhagat Singh College, in B.A. (hon.), in Hindi. At the graduation level, the petitioner claims, he had secured 69.4% marks. 1.2 It is the petitioner's case that he was in the top ten meritorious students of the University of Delhi in the B.A. (Hon.) Hindi, course. 2. It is thus, the petitioner's case that, in 2012, he completed his course in M.A. (Hindi) from Hindu College. 2.1 In M.A. (Hindi), the petitioner claims, that he has secured 65.06% marks. It is further averred by the petitioner that based on his performance...
Rahul Gandhi and Others Vs. Dr. Subramanian Swamy and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-2015
1. Probity of a legendary National Political Party is under scanner in these petitions. This case is one of its own kind. The complainant claims to be a public spirited person, who wishes to expose cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal misappropriation in high places with a view to protect general public interest. In an attempt to do so, recourse to criminal law is sought to be made. The complainant, who is a respondent herein, is a Parliamentarian, who claims to have been a Member of Parliament for five times and his credentials are highlighted in the impugned order. The respondent-complainant claims to be champion in leading crusade against corruption. This time, he has sought to expose cheating, fraud, criminal misappropriation, etc., by Office Bearers of the Congress Party who also happen to be the members of a Private Company-Young Indian Private Company (hereinafter referred to as Y.I.) and major shareholders of Associated Journals Private Limited (hereinafter referred ...
Renu Gupta Vs. University of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-2015
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the Study Leave Agreement dated October 26, 1987 and further to the decision of the respondent No.2 College to deduct the leave salary paid to the petitioner for the period October 26, 1987 to October 26, 1990 from the salary of the petitioner. 2. This is the second round of litigation inasmuch as the petitioner had earlier filed a Writ Petition No.3746/2013, which was disposed of, on the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner withdrawing the petition, realising that the petitioner had not challenged the Study Leave Agreement executed by the petitioner on October 26, 1987. The interim order granted in that petition, on May 30, 2013, was directed to be continued for a period of four weeks. 3. It was contended by Ms. Amita Gupta, that the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in the respondent No.2 College on September 7, 1978. According to her, in terms of para 5 of the appointment letter dated September 4, 1978, she was to...
G.M. Gouzaming Kuki @ G.M. Kuki Vs. UOI and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-2015
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The Petitioner, a Lance Naik in the Border Security Force ( BSF ?) is aggrieved by the order of dismissal issued to him on 16.01.1996 pursuant to a trial by the Summary Security Force Court (SSFC). He seeks directions for quashing of the proceedings and the order of dismissal. 2. The petitioner, a Lance Naik was attached to the 96th Battalion in the BSF. On 08.07.1993, he was on duty as a driver at Subji Mandi, Bala Mura Road, Srinagar when there was a militant attack. The attack was conducted with bombs and grenades, as a result of which splinters entered his head. It was pointed out that one colleague died immediately in the ambush. The Petitioner was admitted to the Army hospital in Srinagar for several weeks, and he proceeded on Medical leave for two months. During this leave, the Petitioner was treated in the District Hospital, Churachandpur, Manipur. The treating doctor certified on 05.01.1994 that the Petitioner was no longer fit for active service, and t...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Shri Ram Milan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-2015
1. The present petitioner, i.e., Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-management') has preferred the present Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity of the impugned Award dated 10.10.2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. VI, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the learned Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator') in I.D. No. 882/98. 2. The brief facts as stated by the respondent-workman in his statement of claim are that the workman, i.e., Shri Ram Milan joined the employment of the petitioner-management, i.e., Municipal Corporation of Delhi as a Chowkidar w.e.f. 11.09.1987. The respondent-workman was a monthly paid/muster roll worker and was being paid wages as fixed and revised from time to time under the Minimum Wages Act by the appropriate Government for unskilled workers. The respondent-workman was neither given any appointment letter nor any leave record was be...
National Highway Authority of India (Nhai) Vs. M/s. Oriental Structura ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-2015
Oral: 1. This matter was called out on 4.12.2015 when counsel for the petitioner informed that petitioner is not giving instructions to its counsel. Time was taken for filing on record the notice of discharge given under Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Today, a photocopy of the Notice dated 5.12.2015 alongwith the registered receipt is placed on record on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner. 2. In my opinion, it is not permissible for the counsel for the petitioner at a very late stage when the matter comes up for hearing in finals to give notice of discharge. If notice of discharge has to be given, it has to be given sufficiently in advance for the client to ensure representation. In any case, I am not dismissing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') in default but I am deciding the same on merits by passing a judgment after hearing the counsel for the respondent and perusing the rec...
Rajesh Kumar Bhola Vs. Ravinder Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-2015
1. By way of this order, I propose to decide the above mentioned application filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery and damages. The defendant No.1 was served with the summons on 2nd June, 2014. The plaintiff supplied the complete set of the paper-book on 22nd July, 2014. The written statement was filed by defendant No.1 on 24th September, 2014. Despite of that, the time for filing the written statement was extended and the plaintiff's application under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC was disposed of. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that he with intent to purchase and the defendant No.1 with an expression to sell executed an Agreement to Sell dated 19th September, 2010 with the plaintiff in respect of property bearing 4/60, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi admeasuring 260.9sq. yds. (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'). 3.1 The defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement for Sale and Purchase of the suit property on 28th July, 2010 wit...
Sita Kashyap (Since Deceased) Thr. Lr Benu Puri Vs. Harbans Kashyap an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-2015
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order of a learned single judge which disregarded a Will propounded by Benu Puri. She complains that the impugned judgment is in error because the Will of late Sita Kashyap (the testatrix, her maternal aunt) had been proved in accordance with law. 2. The antecedents material to this appeal at hand concern a partition suit, where the plaintiffs were two sisters, (Sita Kashyap and Leela Puri). The defendants arrayed were Harbans Kashyap (brother) and the legal representatives (LRs) of their deceased brother Jagdish Chander Kashyap. A preliminary decree of partition of property No. 5A, Guru Gobind Singh Marg, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi was passed by a learned single judge of this court on 10.05.2007, holding each party (i.e the two sisters each and their two brothers) having one-fourth undivided share in this property. Subsequently, a final decree of partition was passed on 19.11.2007, directing sale of the said prop...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »