Delhi Court January 2016 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2016 Page 5 of about 92 results (0.019 seconds)Rajinder Pal Malik Vs. The Vice Chairman, DDA
Court: Delhi
1. Vide the present petition; petitioner seeks directions thereby directing the Delhi Development Authority ( ˜DDA') to hand over the possession of a piece of land within the stipulated period as the petitioner was fully covered under the Gadgil Assurance Scheme ( ˜GAS') and consequently, DDA may be directed to allot BType Govt. land to the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is 76 years old, who had been migrated from Pakistan after the partition of India. He had filed a Writ Petition being CWP No.1588/1984 stating therein that he was fully covered under the GAS and since he was entitled for allotment of BType Govt. land pursuant to Khosla Award, he made an application on 26.11.1980. However, no allotment made so far. 3. Initially, respondent / DDA resisted the claim of the petitioner, nevertheless, it had agreed before this Court to consider the case of the petitioner for allotment of land under category B'. Accordingly, the said petition was disposed of ...
Tag this Judgment!Airports Authority of India Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Anothe ...
Court: Delhi
Oral: 1. Present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to handover / transfer 60 acres of land to the petitioner as decided in the meeting held on 24.12.2001 and as per the requirements of the Petitioner i.e. 60 acres of land for residential use or to hand over 60 acres of land as decided in the minutes of meeting held vide letter dated 10.05.2012 circulated vide letter dated 17.07.2012 and minutes of the meeting dated 01.10.2012; and (b) Pass any other further order(s), which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. (emphasis supplied) 2. Mr. K.K. Rai, learned senior counsel for the petitioner states that on 24th December, 2001 a decision was taken that petitioner would provide ownership of 60 mtrs. width of road to the DDA in lieu of which DDA would provide 60 acres of land to the AAI along with the funnel of the proposed r...
Tag this Judgment!Shweta Kapoor and Others Vs. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
G. Rohini, CJ. 1. The Notification dated 28.12.2015 issued by the Transport Department, Government of NCT of Delhi prohibiting plying of non-transport four wheeled vehicles in the area of National Capital Territory of Delhi on alternate days on the basis of registration numbers of the vehicles is the subject matter of this batch of writ petitions filed by way of Public Interest Litigation. 2. The said Notification dated 28.12.2015 which prohibits plying of the vehicles having registration number ending with odd digits on even dates of the month and vehicles having registration number ending with even digits on odd dates of the month, reads as under: NOTIFICATION Whereas the National Capital Territory of Delhi has more than nine million registered vehicles and the vehicular pollution has become a major source of air pollution in Delhi, and Whereas Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble National Green Tribunal have passed various directions from time to t...
Tag this Judgment!Sarita and Another Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi
Court: Delhi
1. Aggrieved by a judgment dated 04.04.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.1152/2009 arising out of FIR No.311/2009 registered at Police Station Jahangir Puri by which the appellants were convicted, the instant appeals have been filed them. Sarita (A-1) was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 366A/368/201/506(II) and also of Section 109 read with Section 376 IPC. Rahul (A-2) was convicted under Section 376 IPC. By an order dated 27.04.2011, they were sentenced to undergo various prison terms. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case, as reflected in the charge-sheet was that A-1 during the period from 22.5.09 to 5.6.09 at ground floor, H.No.J-389, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, abetted commission of rape upon the prosecutrix X(assumed name), aged about 12 years after wrongfully confining and criminally intimidating her. She was also charged for causing disappearance of evidence of commission of rape. It was alleged that A-2, Dev Raj (since expir...
Tag this Judgment!Balwant Singh Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
1. The present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') is directed against the award dated 18.12.2012 passed by Ld. Additional District Judge-02, South, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, in LAC No. 41/11, titled Balwant Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors.', whereby the learned ADJ has decided the reference made under Section 18 of the Act. The learned ADJ has enhanced the compensation for the acquired land, from Rs. 13.82 lacs per acre “ as determined by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC), to Rs 2,926/- per sq. mtr., along with other statutory benefit. Not satisfied with the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 2. The notification under section 4 of the Act was issued vide notification No. F.9 (44)2000-LandB/LA/10583 dated 16.10.2000; notification under section 6 of the Act was issued vide notification No. F.9 (44)2000-LandB/LA/1599 dated 04.05.2001, and; notification under section 17 of the Act was issued vid...
Tag this Judgment!Rana Parveen Siddiqui and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
G. Rohini, CJ. 1. These two appeals are preferred against the order dated 18.11.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge declining to grant interim relief pending W.P.(C) No.10047/2015 and W.P.(C).4226/2015. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 3. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 13 and Section 14 of the Waqf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'), the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi constituted Delhi Waqf Board (for short referred to as the Board') vide Notification dated 27.12.2011. 4. In terms of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, the said Board consisted four elected members from the electoral college constituted for each category mentioned therein, namely, one member of Parliament from the State, one member of the State Legislature, one member of Delhi State Bar Council and Mutawalli apart from three members nominated by the State Government in terms of Section 14(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The appellant herein falls u...
Tag this Judgment!Sandplast (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
1. The petitioner is a company engaged in the manufacture of Mechanised Autoclave Sand Lime Fly Ash (hereafter MASLFA') Bricks and has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying as under:- (a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents CPWD to include the Mechanised Autoclave Sand Lime Fly Ash Brick in the DSR of 2014 and subsequent DSRS. ? 2. The petitioner impugns the action of respondent no.2 in removing MASLFA Bricks as an approved item from the Delhi Schedule of Rates (hereafter DSR'), 2013 published by it. 3. The petitioner asserts that there are two major kinds of Fly Ash Bricks that are available, one being MASLFA Bricks which is manufactured by the petitioner and the other being Fly Ash Lime Gypsum (hereafter FALG') Bricks. 4. According to the petitioner, MASLFA Bricks are manufactured by an automated process and are superior in relative strength and other parameters such as...
Tag this Judgment!Jnanedar Nath Das Vs. State
Court: Delhi
1. Aggrieved by a judgment dated 08.01.2015 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.59/13 arising out of FIR No.60/13 registered at Police Station Sagarpur by which the appellant was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Section 10 POCSO Act, the present appeal has been preferred by him. By an order dated 16.01.2015, the appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs. 10,000/-. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the chargesheet was that sometime in the Winter Session 2012-2013 at premises Chunmum Nursery School, RZ-74, Dabri Extension, New Delhi, the appellant committed aggravated sexual assault by showing his penis to the prosecutrix/child victim X(Assumed name) and by making her touch it. 3. On 18.03.2013, Rekha X's mother reported the incident to the police at Police Station, Sagar Pur. The Investigating Officer recorded X's statement in question-answer form (Ex.PW1/B) and lodged First Info...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmal Singh (Since Deceased) Thr Lrs and Others Vs. Om Prakash and An ...
Court: Delhi
Open Court: C.M. Nos. 719/2016 and 722/2016 1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The applications stand disposed of. C.M. Nos. 720/2016 and 723/2016 3. By these applications, the appellants seek condonation of five days delay in filing the present appeals. 4. The delay is small and since I am not inclined to issue notice on the appeals, I see no difficulty in allowing these applications. 5. Accordingly, the applications are allowed and the delay in filing the present two appeals is condoned. RSA No.7/2016 and C.M. No. 718/2016; and RSA No.8/2016 and C.M. No. 721/2016 6. The present second appeals are directed against the common judgment and decrees passed in RCA Nos.21-22/2014 preferred by the appellants/ defendants. The First Appellate Court has dismissed both the said appeals and affirmed the common judgment and decrees passed in Suit Nos.181/1996 and 485/1996 preferred by respondent No.1 and Smt. Dhanpati (deceased), whose LRs were impleaded as the other respond...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Paramount Communications Ltd. Vs. Power Grid Corporation of India ...
Court: Delhi
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. (Oral) CM 542/2016 in W.P.(C) 122/2016 and CM 757/2016 in W.P.(C) 186/2016 Allowed subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 122/2016 and CM 541/2016 and W.P.(C) 186/2016 and CM 756/2016 1. Both these petitions carry identical prayers. WP(C) 122/2016 concerns the tender for aerial cables and WP(C) 186/2016 concerns the tender for underground cables. The NITs in respect of the aerial cabling and underground cabling are separate, though virtually identical. 2. The clause that is complained of in both the matters is identical and that is Clause 1.2(a) of Appendix QR (CAB01). The said clause reads as under:- 1.2 Financial Position a) Net Worth for last 3 financial years should be positive. ? 3. The case of the petitioner in both these writ petitions is that it is one of the largest manufacturers of power cables (aerial as well as underground) in India. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it has a 100% track record with regard to suppl...
Tag this Judgment!