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.
M/S Gupta Brothers Vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
1. The petition impugns the order dated 30th September, 2014 of the respondents no.1and2 East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC) de-barring the petitioner from the panel of respondents EDMC for a period of five years from the date of issue of the order (less the period of four months and 21 days i.e. from 7th November, 2013 to 28th March, 2014 for which the petitioner had remained de-barred earlier). 2. The petition challenging the de-barring order was filed and re-filed on 13th February, 2015 and 13th March, 2015 respectively and came up first before this Court on 18th March, 2015 when none appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the petition was adjourned to 21st July, 2015. On 21st July, 2015, being prima facie of the view that the matter was purely contractual and entailed disputed questions of fact and that the remedy by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not available to the petitioner, the counsel for the petitioner was heard at length and ...
Kamran Ansari and Others Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Kamran Ansari, Smt. Chand Bibi, Sh. Rafi Ahmed, Smt. Malka Rafi, Sh. Mohd. Rashid, Smt. Nasreen, Sh. Mohd. Arshad and Smt. Rushda Tasneem for quashing of FIR No.597/2014 dated 30.07.2014, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar on the basis of the mediation report of the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Delhi High Court, New Delhi in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner no.1 and respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Sadia Naaz @ Sadiya Naaz on 19.11.2015. 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 her counsel. 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 05.01.2012 as per Muslim rites a...
Rahul Deora and Another Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Rahul Deora and Archana Deora for quashing of FIR No.121/2012 dated 26.04.2012, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Kalkaji on the basis of the compromise deed arrived at between Vikas Deora (husband of respondent no.2) and respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Ritu Agarwal on 19.11.2013. 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 her counsel. 3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage between Vikas Deora and the respondent no.2 was solemnized on 24.02.2008 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. From the very inception of the marriage, the husband of the complainant and other in-laws were not happy with the dowry articles and gave cruel treatment to the complainant. The mother-in-law i.e. petitioner no.2 of...
Jamia Hamdard (Deemed University) Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporatio ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
1. The petitions impugn the order dated 16th July, 2015 of the Municipal Taxation Tribunal (Tribunal) in HTAs No.197/MTT/2015 to 200/MTT/2015 (HTAs No.197/2015 to 200/2015) preferred by the petitioner, dismissing the applications of the petitioner praying that HTAs No.1/MTT/2013 to 3/MTT/2013 (HTAs No.1/2013 to 3/2013) be heard before hearing HTAs No.197/2015 to 200/2015 and directing the petitioner to deposit the amount of principal tax in dispute in HTAs No.197/2015 to 200/2015. 2. The petitions also impugn the letters dated 27th July, 2015 and 7th August, 2015 of the respondent South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) attaching the bank accounts of the petitioner and seek a mandamus for refund of the amount already recovered from the said accounts. 3. The petitions were listed first on urgent mentioning on 11th August, 2015, when the counsel for the respondent SDMC appeared on caveat and with the consent of the counsels were finally heard and judgment reserved. It was informed that ...
Rajendra Jain Vs. D.D.A. and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
1. This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree dated 7th January, 2005 of the Court of Shri Vimal Kumar Yadav, Additional District Judge, Delhi of dismissal of Suit No.283/2004 (instituted on 24th February, 1994) filed by the appellant for the relief (i) of declaration that the cancellation by the respondent/defendant Delhi Development Authority (DDA) of the lease of plot of land bearing No.G-2, Kalkaji Shopping Centre, New Delhi is void and of no legal consequence; and, (ii) of permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant DDA from dispossessing the appellant/plaintiff from the said property. 2. Before coming to the course chartered by this appeal, it is expedient to notice the course which the suit from which this appeal arises took. 3. The appellant, in the auction held by the respondent DDA on 30th July, 1984, was the highest bidder for leasehold rights in respect of commercial Plot No.G-2, Kalkaji Shoppi...
Prakash Chand Kaushik Vs. M/S Vishal Timer Traders
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 30.11.1985 by virtue of which the learned Additional District Judge has decreed the suit for damages but dismissed the suit for ejectment filed by the appellant against the respondent/defendant. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the present appellant had allegedly let out a piece of vacant land to the respondent on 01.05.1974 on a monthly rent of Rs. 525/- for the period of 11 months. However, despite the expiry of 11 months the respondent continued to be in occupation of the tenanted premises and in the year 1976 the respondent filed a petition bearing No.10/1976 for fixation of standard rent against the appellant. The said petition continued in the Courts for almost three years and on 08.08.1979, respondent No.2 as the sole proprietor of respondent No.1 withdrew the petition on the ground that the portion let out to the respondent did not constitute premises within the definition of the Delhi Rent Cont...
Tejpal @ Leelu and Another Vs. The Stae (Govt of NCT of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
1. By this petition filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr. P.C.) the petitioner seeks bail in FIR No.2113/2014 under Section 302/34 of IPC, at Police Station Mehrauli, New Delhi. 2. The present case was initially registered under Section 323/342 of IPC on the statement of the victim Kamla. According to her statement, her husband who was employed in Akashvani was admitted in Batra hospital due to heart and breathing problem. It was also stated by the victim that they have a plot near their house, at which her devar (brother-in-lw) Tejpal and his family including his wife and his sons Sainky and Manjeet had taken possession and on 04.11.2014 at about 12 noon, when the complainant went at the plot and asked these four persons to vacate the plot, then all the four persons started quarreling with her. According to her, when she came inside the house, all the above mentioned four persons entered in her house following her and Tejpal (p...
Alok Ranjan and Another Vs. State Through CBI and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
1. These two petitions have been filed by petitioner, Mr. Alok Ranjan (Crl. M.C. No.456/2012) and petitioner, Homi Rajvansh (Crl. M.C. No.3325/2015) seeking quashing of the charge-sheet in case FIR No.RC-EOU-1-2007-E0002 dated 10.12.2007 registered under Section 120-B read with Sections 405/408/420/467/468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and to quash summoning order dated 07.06.2010 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI, Delhi in charge-sheet No.03/2010/EOU-1. 2. Since both the petitions arose out of the same charge-sheet, therefore both the petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The facts emerging from the charge-sheet which are necessary for disposal of these petitions are as under:- (a) Pursuant to complaint dated 15.12.2007, instituted by Alok Ranjan (petitioner in Criminal M.C. No.456/12), the then Managing Director of NAFED, on 19.12.2007, CBI registered a formal RCEOU-1/2007-E0002, under sections 120-B read with sections 405, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the I...
Gurmeet Singh and Others Vs. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Gurmeet Singh, Sh. Arjun Singh, Smt. Mohinder Kaur and Smt. Raj Kaur for quashing of the FIR No.184/2011 dated 28.05.2011, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden on the basis of the settlement between petitioner no.1 and respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Sarabjeet Kaur. 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 Inder Pal. 3. The factual matrix of the present case is that petitioners/accused persons were badly harassing the complainant for the last three years.Since last four years, the husband of the complainant has been residing in London and putting false allegations on the complainant that she is having relations with other boys. The mother-in-law of the complainant had punched her in the stomach...
Vinod Sharma Vs. The State (N.C.T Of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of sentence dated 27.01.2012 and 30.01.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge, NDPS, South and South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.20A/10 FIR No. 242/10 under Section 20 NDPS Act, Police Station Hauz Khas convicting the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act ) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs.1 lac in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C was also given to him. 2. Prosecution case, in nutshell, is that on 14.07.2010 at about 3.45 pm a secret information was received by ASI Bijender Singh (PW-5) in the police station that one person named Vinod Sharma resident of Himachal Pradesh who used to supply Charas in Delhi from Himachal Pradesh will come at the underpass near AIIMS Hospital i.e., und...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »