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.
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Jai Gopal Thru Lrs
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2015
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the award dated 25.11.2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Karkardooma, Delhi in ID No.79/11. 2. Undisputed background facts are as follows: The respondent Jai Gopal was employed as a Fitter with the petitioner corporation. He was issued a chargesheet for remaining absent from duty for 60 days between 01.01.1191 to 31.12.1991. The chargesheet specifically stated that past record will be taken into consideration at the time of passing the final order in the case. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and a regular departmental enquiry was held in which respondent was held guilty. The enquiry report was accepted by the management and the respondent was dismissed from service. His dismissal gave rise to an industrial dispute. Since there were disputes between the petitioner and the respondent, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Industria...
Kailash Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2015
R.K. Gauba, J. (Oral): 1. By judgment dated 04.01.2011, the appellant was held guilty, as charged, for the offence of murder of his wife Saroj in the early morning hours on 09.09.2008 in the premises described as E-133, Indra Park, Najafgarh, New Delhi. 2. By order dated 18.01.2011, the trial court awarded imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/-, also directing that in the event of non-payment of fine, the appellant would undergo simple imprisonment for four months. The benefit of set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( Cr.P.C ?) was accorded. 3. The case of the prosecution, briefly put, was that the appellant was married to Saroj (hereinafter referred to as the victim or the deceased ?) about three years prior to the incident in question. She had given birth to a girl child, named Ruchi, who was about two years old when Saroj died. The appellant and the deceased with the infant daughter were living as tenants in the aforementioned property which was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›