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.
Vijay Kumar Vs. Shashi Nag and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral) 1. Suit property bearing Municipal No.4/4, Block F, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi was owned in equal share by Late Sh.Deen Dayal Mathur and his wife Kaushalya Mathur. Deen Dayal Mathur died on May 13, 1991 and inheritance was under a will dated November 26, 1989 executed by him, which was accepted by his wife and four daughters named Veena, Shashi, Shobha and Malini. As per the will, Deen Dayal bequeathed his undivided share in favour of his wife and four daughters. Kaushalya already having 50% undivided interest in the property thus became owner of 60% share thereof. The four daughters became owner of the remaining 40% share i.e. each had 10% share in the property. 2. The mother and four daughters decided to redevelop the property and entered into a collaboration with a builder on May 04, 1996 as per which the builder reconstructed the property using his own funds and became the owner of the basement and the second floor. The ground and the first floor along wit...
R.K.Rametra and Another Vs. Prakash Chand Kaushik
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
1. The only substantial question of law which was framed by my learned predecessor vide order dated 20.03.1997 was Whether the plaintiff s suit is barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act? 2. In order to consider as to whether the suit is barred by Section 50 of the Rent Act it will be pertinent here to reproduce the exact language of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act which reads as under:- 50. Jurisdiction of civil courts barred in respect of certain matters (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no civil court shall entertain any suit or proceeding in so far as it relates to the fixation of standard rent in relation to any premises to which this Act applies or to eviction of any tenant there from or to any other matter which the Controller is empowered by or under this Act to decide, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by the Controller under this Act shall be granted by any civil court or other authority. ............. ...
Chiranjeev Singh Lamba and Others Vs. State (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, Chiranjeev Singh Lamba, Smt. Charanjeet Kaur, Palvinder Singh Lamba and Gurmeet Kaur for quashing of FIR No.317/2012 dated 13.10.2012, under Sections 498A/323/34 IPC registered at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar on the basis of the compromise deed arrived at between petitioner nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Amanpreet Kaur on 22.09.2014. 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 ASI Shyam Sunder. 3. The factual matrix of the present case is that on 28.04.2012 at about 2 pm, the petitioner no.1 came to the room of complainant and abused her. He even snatched the daughter of the complainant-Mannat from her and the complainant was also thrown by petitioner no.1 from the room and he locked the room. The complainant was also asked...
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Devi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
1. Zile Singh suffered death at the age of 45 years due to injuries sustained in a motor vehicular accident that occurred at 10.50 PM on 19.10.2009 when the cycle cart taken out on public road by him was hit by a truck bearing No.HR 38J 5989 (the offending vehicle) in the area of Shiv Mandir, Village Hamidpur, Delhi. His widow, children and mother, first to fifth respondents (collectively, the claimants) brought a claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) on 18.11.2009 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which registered it as MACT case No.528/11(2009). In the claim case, the appellant insurance company was impleaded as third party respondent - it concededly being the insurer against third party risk for the period in question - in addition to Sanjeev Kumar Sharma (seventh respondent) and Gopi Chand Thakur (sixth respondent), they being the owner (insured) and the driver respectively of the offending vehicle. 2. It is noted from the Tribunal s...
Shri Rajender Kumar Duggal and Another Vs. Smt Sanjog Bedi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 06.06.2013 wherein the eviction petition filed by him (Rajender Kumar Duggal) seeking eviction of his tenant (Sanjog Bedi) in proceedings under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) stood dismissed. This was after trial. 2. Record discloses that there are two petitioners before the Trial Court namely Rajender Kumar Duggal and Ashok Kumar Duggal. Both were sons of late Raghunath Duggal. They had sought eviction of the tenant from the suit property i.e. House No. 47, Block 52, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The tenanted premises were on the ground floor comprising of three rooms, one kitchen, one W.C., one bathroom and one covered verandah and open courtyard (depicted in red colour in the site plan). The tenancy was initially created in the name of Brahm Dutt Sharma. This was in the year 1952. Monthly rent of Rs.110/- per month which was exclusive of electricity and water charges. After the death of Brahm...
Hukamdin @ Chote Lal and Others Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
P.S. Teji, J. 1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Hukamdin @ Chote Lal, Ms. Hasina, Shakti Arora @ Babbu @ Bobi and Fakruddin for quashing of FIR No.137/2013 dated 22.04.2013, under Sections 308/452/34 IPC registered at Police Station Badarpur on the basis of the settlement agreement arrived at between the petitioners and the respondent nos.2 to 7, namely, Sh. Abdul Hanif, Abdul Rehman, Smt. Hasanjadi, Sh. Lajja Ram, Smt. Lambo Devi @ Prem Devi and Sh. Pappu, respectively, on 10.09.2014. 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 and respondent nos. 3 to 7 have been identified to be the victims in the FIR in question by their counsel. 3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the complainant lodged the FIR in question on the allegation that on 21.04.2013 at about 10 pm, Fakru, Kallu @ Mohd. ...
Talvinder Singh and Others Vs. State (GOVT OF NCT 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. Talvinder Singh, Sh. Sanjog Singh, Smt. Niwas Kaur, Smt. Narangi Kaur and Sh. Dheeraj Singh @ Sunny for quashing of FIR No.308/2013 dated 30.08.2013, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Nihal Vihar on the basis of the settlement arrived at between petitioner no.1 and respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Pooja Kaur before the Court of Ld. MM, Mahila Court, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 28.10.2014. 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 ASI Anil Dutt. 3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 24.05.2009. After sometime of the marriage, the in-laws of the complainant started quarreling with her on petty matters for demand of dowry and th...
X (Changed name) State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
1. Present petition under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the victim X (changed name) assailing the legality and correctness of an order dated 21.03.2015 and for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred The accused ) in case FIR No.52/2015 registered under Sections 354/354A/354D/506 IPC at PS Lodhi Colony. The petition is contested by the accused. Status report has been filed by the State. 2. The facts material for adjudication of the petition as stated in the petition are that X , Research Analyst in the office of the accused at The Energy and Research Institute (In short TERI ) since September, 2013 filed a complaint with the Internal Complaints Committee on 09.02.2015 complaining sexual harassment by him. After that, she was subjected to even more harassment; there were repeated attempts by the accused to call her to his office; meet her alone and talk to her. She lodged complaint with the police on 13.02.2...
National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Chandan Singh and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
1. By the appeal at hand, presented under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act), the insurance company has challenged the judgment passed by the motor accident claims tribunal (tribunal) on 16.4.2007 awarding compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition (17.4.1998) by the first respondent herein under Sections 166 read with Section 140 of MV Act for the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 11.30 a.m. on 19.8.1997 involving motor vehicle described as TATA Sumo bearing registration No. DL 1Y 3978 in the area of Agolai Jodhpur (Rajasthan). 2. According to the petition presented by the first respondent (the claimant), he was engaged as a driver on the vehicle in question by his employer M/s United Tour and Travels office at Paharganj, New Delhi at wages of ` 4,000/- per month including overtime and other allowances. The claimant was driving the vehicle on way to Jodhpur wit...
Ex. Ct. Anirudha Panda Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 4.11.2004, passed by the Deputy Inspector General, BSF rejecting his statutory petition against conviction by the Petty Security Force Court (PSFC) for the offence under Section 46 of the BSF Act, 1968 (in short the Act ), i.e., using criminal force on a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty that is punishable under Section 354 IPC. 2. By the impugned order dated 24.2.2004, the PSFC had concluded that the petitioner had used criminal force on the victim (hereinafter referred to as A , to protect her identity), a girl eight years of age, with the intention of outraging her modesty and has thus committed an offence punishable under Section 354 IPC read with Section 45 of the Act. Resultantly, the petitioner was dismissed from the service and was inflicted a punishment of imprisonment for a period of nine months. 3. The incident in question relates back to the year 2002, when the petitioner was working on the post of a Constable and...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »