Court : Delhi
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. These proceedings emanate from an order of reference dated 09.06.2014 ( Reference Order ) made by the Learned Single Judge in CS(OS) No. 411/2010 ( Suit ), formulating the following questions of law for adjudication by this Court: (i) Whether the High Court while exercising the Original Civil Jurisdiction is deemed to be a District Court within the meaning of Section 2(4) of CPC in the context of Section 7(1)(a) of the Family Courts Act, 1984? (ii) Whether the original civil jurisdiction of the High Court excluded (sic) for any suit or petition by virtue of Sections 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984? 2. This Court notices that the second question would necessarily involve a determination on the first. Accordingly, we proceed to examine as to whether this Court's original civil jurisdiction in respect of matters outlined in the Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) is ousted by virtu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IA No.4726/2016 (by plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC) 1. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff in a suit for partition in respect of an immovable property bearing Shop No.53, Mehar Chand Market, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, praying inter alia that a decree for partition may be passed on the basis of the admissions made by the defendants in the written statement. 2. As per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 are the joint allottees of the subject shop, taken on leasehold basis from the Land and Building Department, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, vide allotment letter dated 15.01.1997. After the allotment was made in their joint names, the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 had executed a hire purchase agreement with the Government of India and continued depositing the requisite dues from time to time. Both the parties had joint possession of the shop and shared the common keys for the entry from the front and the back ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The 24th day of September, 2013 was a day in the life of the petitioner which he shall rue. In the cadets changing room at the Air Force Academy in Dundighal (Hyderabad) he chanced upon the ATM card of his course mate Flt.Cdt.Shubhojeet Roy along with its pin code. The devil in the petitioner overpowered the goodness in him. He proceeded straight to the nearest ATM and withdrew Rs. 5,000/-. The information of Rs. 5,000/- from the account was intimated the same day by the bank to Flt.Cdt.Shubhojeet Roy who informed the instructor of the fact that his ATM card had been stolen and Rs. 5,000/- withdrawn from his account. The petitioner admits having knowledge of the fact that Flt.Cdt.Shubhojeet Roy got knowledge of the theft of his ATM card and withdrawal of Rs. 5,000/- from his account the same day and had lodged a complaint with the instructor. The petitioner also learnt that the Air Force Authorities had addressed a letter to the bank the same day demanding vide...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The petitioner, Daya Dhar Prasad Thapliyal was appointed as a Water Carrier with BSF and as of March, 2004 was attached to the S.HQ. BSF at Bhuj. For performing duties he was working with the 151st Battalion BSF at Bhuj. 2. March 07, 2004 was the date when the festival of Holi was to be celebrated. At around 13:00 hours a complaint was received by Deputy Commandant B.L.Gupta of the 151st Battalion that petitioner had misbehaved with one Mansi Bhandari and her younger brother Vaibhav Bhandari, the former being 8 years of age and the latter 4 years. 3. As per the requirement of Rule 43 of the BSF Rules, 1969 an offence report was prepared listing three charges against the petitioner as follows: (i) Committing Civil Offence: That is to say house trespass punishable under Section 448 IPC, (ii) Voluntarily causing hurt to Kumari Mansi and Master Vaibhav, children of Ct.B.S.Bhandari, and (iii) Of being in a state of intoxication. 4. The petitioner was brought before ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Charge sheeted before a criminal court but finally acquitted, whether by way of benefit of doubt or honourably would it be a relevant consideration in appraising the suitability of a candidate who successfully clears the selection process to be appointed to an armed force of the Union, is the question which arises for consideration in the instant writ petition. 2. Successfully clearing the selection process to be appointed as a Constable (GD) in a Central Armed Police Force, as per marks obtained by him and keeping in view his preference, the petitioner was offered appointment as a Constable (GD) in CISF and was called upon to fill the enrolment form. In the column applicable where the candidates had to disclose whether they were an accused in any criminal case, the petitioner dutifully informed that the was a co-accused in FIR No.2011 dated July 05, 2008 registered with PS Narnaund (Hissar) for offences punishable under Section 323/324/307/120-B/34 IPC. He dis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral) 1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellants/plaintiff against the impugned Judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 10.2.2004 whereby the first appellate court instead of granting specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 30.11.1978 only granted compensation to the appellants/plaintiff as stated in the agreement to sell. The original plaintiff has expired pendente lite and is now represented by his legal heirs. Appellants are aggrieved because in spite of holding that there did exist an agreement to sell, there was breach of contract on behalf of the defendant/respondent, time was held not to be of the essence of the contract, and, the plaintiff had proved his readiness and willingness, yet, the first appellate court instead of granting specific performance only granted compensation. It is argued by the appellants that the conclusion of the first appellate court is based u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the posting order dated May 16, 2016 under which the petitioner has been posted to 811 ONGC TA Vadodhara (Gujarat) as also the movement order dated June 13, 2016 by which the petitioner has been ordered to move from Delhi to Vadodhara in compliance with the posting order. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was posted in Delhi on February 26, 2013 and was directed by an order dated September 16, 2013 to report at Borjahar (Assam) as attachment for certain disciplinary case. Pursuant to the said attachment the petitioner reported at Borjahar on December 10, 2013 and since then he had remained at Borjahar on attachment and has only returned back on June 01, 2016 when he was asked to report back to his unit i.e. the AGs branch at Delhi. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the policy framed by the Indian Army warrants three years posting at a place. As per the petitioner the period of his ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
V. Kameswar Rao, J.1. This is a petition under Sections 276 and 290 of the Indian Succession Act, for grant of Letters of Administration with Will dated 13th October, 1988 of Late Shri Gurdial Singh Panesar in favour of petitioner no.1 subject to payment of Court Fees in respect of property at Village Bissaula as shown in the list of properties at Annexure P-5, even though in the prayer clause it has been stated that the question of lease hold property at Delhi Cantt, may be left open for future as the petitioners are not entitled to it.2. It is suffice to state that the statement was made by petitioner no. 1 during his evidence that the Will dated 13th October, 1988 (Exh.PW1/1) does not cover the property situated at Delhi Cantt and he is not claiming any right or share in the property.3. The case set up by the petitioner no.1 in the petition is that petitioner is a Citizen of India and is a permanent resident of Delhi and managing agricultural farming at Village-Bissaula Pargana, Has...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. As both the impugned orders arise out of the same Criminal Complaint bearing C.C. No.09/1/13 titled as Subramaniam Swamy v. Sonia Gandhi and others , so all these petitions are being taken together for decision. 2. The factual matrix is that a complaint for offences under Sections 403, 406 and 420 IPC read with Section 120B of the IPC was filed against the accused persons, namely, Sonia Gandhi @ Edvige Albina Antonia Maino, Rahul Gandhi, Motilal Vora, Oscar Fernandes, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda @ Satyanarayan Gangaram Pitroda and Young Indian (hereinafter accused Motilal Vora, Oscar Fernandes, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda @ Satyanarayan Gangaram Pitroda and Young Indian shall be referred to as the petitioners ) by the respondent No.1-Dr.Subramanian Swamy (hereinafter referred to as complainant ). It was alleged in the complaint that the accused persons committed fraud, cheating and other offences against All India Congress Committee (Congress Party) and The Associated Journals Ltd. (AJL),...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Petitioner by way of present writ petition challenges the forfeiture of the bid security of Rs. 25 lakhs by the respondent authority on account of the failure by the petitioner to enter into a Concession Agreement within the stipulated time in spite of being declared L1 bidder and Letter of Acceptance being issued in his favour vide letter dated 15th March, 2011. 2. Mr. Gaurav Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was inequitable and illegal for the respondent authority to forfeit the bid security since the Concession Agreement to be entered into for five years was in contravention of the Outdoor Advertisement Policy dated 10th September, 2007 of the government itself. He contended that the Outdoor Advertisement Policy dated 10th September, 2007 stipulated that the Concession Agreement in relation to Bus Shelter (category 3) could only be for a maximum period of three years. He submitted that as the tender document was in direct contravention of the Outdoor Adv...
Tag this Judgment!