Delhi Court March 2016 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.
Ved Prakash Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
1. Present appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of conviction and order on sentence dated 09.05.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 55/08, by virtue of which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay Rs.20,000/- as fine and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 31.05.2008 W/ASI Shakun received information that a lady was lying in unconscious condition at house no. 448, Type-A, Ahata Kidara, Sadar Bazar, Delhi and she communicated this information to SI Rajbir telephoically, while recording DD No. 13A. The above information pertained to Smt. Amarjeet Kaur, who was residing at house No. 448, the government accommodation alloted to her. ASI Rajbir along with Ct. Sunil reached the spot...
Jalpac India Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
1. These appeals are filed by both the parties seeking to impugn the order of the learned Single Judge dated 2.7.2012. By the impugned order the Court partly allowed the Writ Petition filed by M/s.Jalpac India Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Jalpac') and quashed the letter dated 7.10.2004 issued by the respondent in the writ petition i.e. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'The Insurance Company') by which letter the insurance company partially repudiated the claim of Jalpac under the Marine Insurance Policy. The impugned order directs the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 25,85,706/- to Jalpac after deducting amounts already paid. Simple interest on the amount was held payable to Jalpac @9% per annum. Regarding the balance claim of Jalpac of Rs. 7,60,052/-, the court held that there are disputed questions of fact and that Jalpac would be entitled to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law to recover the said balance amount. 2. LPA 722/...
Om Prakash Vs. State (Govt Of NCT Of Delhi) and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2016
1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the Cr.P.C. ) has been filed by the petitioner for quashing/setting aside the order dated 09.05.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision petition upholding the order dated 07.03.2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for framing of charge under Section 498A/046 IPC and also for quashing of FIR No.376/2000, under Section 498A/406 IPC, Police Station Alipur. 2. The factual matrix emerges from the record are that the marriage of between the petitioner and complainant/respondent Hemlata was solemnized on 20.02.1999. The respondent no.1 got lodged the FIR in question in which she alleged that since the inception of marriage the attitude of the petitioner and his family members was not cordial towards the respondent no.2. The marriage between them never consummated. The petitioner and his family members kept on taunting the respondent no.2...
Joginder Kumar Bhasin Vs. Govt.Of NCT Of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2016
1. Present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- A) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to allot an alternative plot to the petitioner in lieu of the plot no.2 at Kalyan Puri Shopping Complex, which was illegally given by the respondent no.2 to the respondent no.3. Any other relief which this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner states that in a similar matter concerning an adjoining plot, this Court has granted an alternative plot in W.P.(C) 5465/2000. The relevant portion of the order dated 5th August, 2002 relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner is reproduced hereinbelow:- .....There are admissions on behalf of the respondents that Plot No.3, Kalyan Puri, Shopping Complex, was purchased by the petitioner from D.D.A. in an auction held on 13th February, 1976 on deposit of...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Brij Mohan Anand and Other ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2016
1. All these eight appeals arise out of judgment of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) rendered on 29.03.2007 whereby six claim petitions presented under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) were decided and various amounts of compensation awarded fastening the liability on New India Assurance company Ltd. (the insurer) of Tata Sumo car bearing registration No.DL 6CA 8049 (hereinafter referred to as the car ). 2. On 23.08.1999, the car, indisputably driven by Subhash Chand was going from Delhi towards Balaji via Mathura (UP). It met with an accident at about 11 PM in the area of village Janak within the jurisdiction of Goverdhan, District Mathura (UP) when there was a collision between the said vehicle and Mahindra Jeep registered as RJ 34C 0112 (hereinafter referred to as the jeep ) coming from opposite direction. In the car, six members of a family were traveling as passengers, they including Brij Mohan Anand, his wife Suman Anand, his father B R Anand...
Maharishi Ayurveda Products Pvt. Ltd Vs. Sparsh Builders Private Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2016
1. This appeal is directed against a judgment that decreed a suit for possession of property described as A-14, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi ("the suit property"); also for the recovery of Rs. 18,50,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.12.2008 till the recovery of possession, less the amount received by the plaintiff. 2. The respondent (hereafter "the plaintiff") filed a suit seeking decree of possession, recovery of damages and permanent injunction in relation to the suit property, which measures 4617.67 sq. yards. The suit averred that the said property was purchased from the defendant/appellant (hereafter "MAP") on payment of full sale consideration of Rs. 4 crores with transfer of symbolic possession and execution of alleged transfer documents; these included a registered agreement to sell (affixing stamp duty of Rs. 30 lakhs; marked Ex. P-2); registered power of attorney (Ex. P-3); receipt (Ex. P-4); registered Will of Anand Prakash Srivastava (Ex. P-5); Affid...
Rajeev Kumar and Others Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2016
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Mr. Hari Singh, Ms. Jasoda Devi, Mr. Sanjay Singh, Ms. Aarti Singh, Mr. Yatender Singh, Ms. Anjali @ Ajay Kumari Verma, Ms. Vichitra and Ms. Chitra for quashing of FIR No.418/2012 dated 29.12.2012, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station New Ashok Nagar on the basis of the mediation report of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi arrived at between the petitioner no.1 and respondent No.2, namely, Ms.Pritika Singh on 08.05.2014. 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 Hasrat Ali. 3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 was solemnized on 19.02.2011 as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the husb...
Om Prakash Parasrampuria and Others Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2016
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Whether the decision pronounced by a Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, reported as (2015) 1 SCC 166 KSL and Industries Ltd. vs. Arihant Threads Ltd. and Ors. has changed the track in which the river was flowing heretofore, is the question which arises for consideration in the two appeals. As per the writ petitioners the said decision holds that recovery proceedings under Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 are to be treated as a suit and therefore if the principal borrower is declared as a sick industrial company proceedings under Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 cannot lie or be continued against the guarantors. Is that so? 2. The question arises in the backdrop of sub-Section 1 of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, which reads as under:- 22. Suspension of legal proceedings, contracts, etc. (1) Where in respect of an industrial company, an inquiry...
Naveen Kumar Gupta and Others Vs. Bhupender Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2016
1. These six appeals arise out of common judgment passed on 04.04.2007 by the motor accident claims tribunal (the tribunal) on three separate claim cases presented under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the MV Act), all relating to a motor vehicular accident that took place on 23.09.1999 involving three vehicles including Maruti car bearing registration no.DL-8CC-1720 (the car), gypsy bearing registration no.HR-26B-9327 (the gypsy) and truck bearing registration no.CH-01A-8247 (the truck). 2. The car was moving from Delhi in the direction of Jaipur on way to a place known as Khatu Shamji in Rajsthan. The gypsy, on the other hand, was moving in the opposite direction i.e. from Jaipur towards Delhi. The truck was parked on the side of the road along the carriage way used by the traffic moving from the side of Delhi to Jaipur. The accident occurred at about 01:00 PM in broad day light. The evidence brought before the tribunal clearly proved that the gypsy coming from ...
Kusum Lata Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2016
1. This appeal under Section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the appellant / complainant feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28.11.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.10/2009 in FIR No.55/2009 under Sections 323/452/506/34 IPC Police Station Harsh Vihar, Delhi and 3(1)(x)(xi)(xv) of Scheduled Caste /Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) whereby the respondent nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted. 2. The appellant / complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 read with Section 156(3) Cr.PC in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi against Soraj Singh, Smt. Rama Sharma and Shikha for offence punishable under Sections 323/452/506/34 IPC Police Station Harsh Vihar, Delhi and 3(1)(x)(xi)(xv) of the Act. Vide order dated 28.03.2009, under the directions of the ACMM, SHO Police Station Harsh Vihar, Delhi registered an FIR under the provisions of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »