Delhi Court August 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.
Jagdip Singh Vs. Jasvinder Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral) CM No.17875/2016 Allowed as prayed for. Respondent No.7 and 8 are deleted from the memo of parties. RFA (OS) No.42/2015 1. Suit filed by the appellant has been rejected holding that the same is barred by limitation. There is also a finding that adequate court fee has not been paid and for which we find that the learned Single Judge has not given an opportunity to the appellant to make good the deficiency in the court fee. As per clause (b) and (c) of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure unless an opportunity is granted to correct the valuation and pay proper court fee within the time granted a plaint cannot be rejected. Of course, if within the time granted needful is not done a plaint can be rejected. To this extent, the impugned order suffers from a serious infirmity. 2. But at the heart of the matter lies the finding that the plaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. 3. In the plaint declaration and permanent injunction is prayed for. The de...
Rajendra Prasad Vs. C. Ramesh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
Ms. G. Rohini, C.J. 1. This appeal is Preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 05.11.2015 in Cont. Case (C) No.65/2015. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein, who was working as the Assistant Registrar in Vallabhbhai Patel Chest Institute (for short 'VPCI') filed W.P.(C) No.2110/2013 assailing the termination of his services by order dated 18.02.2013. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by order dated 29.01.2014 and set aside the order of termination holding that the Governing Body of VPCI on its own cannot hold a meeting and thereby confer a power upon itself which the Executive Council of University of Delhi has not conferred on it. However, it was left open to the respondents to continue the disciplinary proceedings, if permissible in law, subject to necessary powers being conferred upon it by a specific or general resolution of the Executive Council. 3. Challenging the said order dated 29.01.2014 in W.P.(C) No.2110/2013, VPCI ...
Dev Prakash Sharma Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
S.P. Garg, J. 1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant Dev Prakash Sharma to impugn the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 22.04.2013 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate in Complaint Case No.184/2013 Dev Prakash Sharma vs. M/s.Concept Lighting Solutions Ltd. and Anr. under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act whereby the respondents No.2 and 3 (in short Respondents) were acquitted. The appeal is contested by them. 2. The appellant had filed a complaint case against the respondents for commission of offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments on 22.02.2008 claiming himself to be proprietor of firm Ideal Associates in whose name cheques in question were issued. The appellant while appearing as CW-1, in the cross-examination, admitted that his son Bharat Sharma was the proprietor of the Ideal Associates. The Trial Court by the impugned judgment acquitted the respondents as the appellant had no locus standi to institute the complaint case. 3. Learned counse...
Gaurav and Others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
1. By the present appeals the appellants Gaurav, Suraj @ Bhagat and Sanjay @ Amit challenge the impugned judgment dated 22nd November, 2014 convicting Gaurav and Sanjay @ Amit for the offences punishable under Sections 395/186/332/353/34 IPC and Suraj @ Bhagat for the offences punishable under Sections 395/186/332/353/397/34 IPC in FIR No.142/2012 registered at PS Maurya Enclave and the order on sentence dated 29th November, 2014 directing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-; in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. Learned counsel for Gaurav contends that Pradeep, PW- 18 who was the complainant has turned hostile. Further, Pradeep in his cross examination stated that Gaurav was not seen at the spot, hence benefit of doubt should be given to Gaurav. There are contradictions in the testimony of Pradeep and Dinesh. Pradeep stated that Suraj @ Bhagat gave the stab blow on his stomach whereas Dinesh...
Mala Bhagat Bali Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
I.A. No. 10151/2016 (for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. IA No. 10152/2016 (for condonation of delay of 690 days in filing of the appeal) 2. This is an application seeking condonation of the delay of 690 days in filing the appeal against an order passed by the Joint Registrar ( JR ) on 16thSeptember 2014 declining to give any further opportunity to the Appellant/Respondent No.2 to file a reply and thereby closing the said right to file a reply. 3. The reasons given by the Applicant are as under: 3. For some quite time now particularly after the demise of her father (who was also an Advocate), Appellant has been suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). This is a psychiatric condition where the patient suffers from panic attacks specially while dealing with issues on which they are sensitive. In the case of Appellant it is issues of close family members. While the Appellant who is also visually handicapped is at ease handling her clients' matters she g...
Abdul Mazid Vs. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
Mukta Gupta, J. 1. By the instant appeal, the appellant Abdul Majid challenges the impugned judgment dated 14 th September, 2015 whereby he has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323/506 Part I IPC and Section 10, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short POCSO Act ) in FIR No. 59/2014 registered at PS Tuglak Road and the order on sentence dated 24th September, 2015 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five months for the offence punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act, rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months for...
Madhu Pamnani and Others Vs. Neeraj Pamnani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. We had heard the parties at length on August 17, 2016 and had indicated that judgment would be pronounced today. The reason was the desire of the Court to go through the pleadings and the voluminous record in the appeal which spans 569 pages. We did so for the reason the parties had argued the appeal themselves. 2. The voluminous record is replete with applications which are verbose and were disposed of on August 17, 2016. They are full of allegations and counter allegations against each other. Said pleadings are irrelevant to decide the issue which arises in the appeal. 3. The wife is aggrieved by the impugned order dated August 07, 2014 refusing to modify the visitation rights granted to the respondent to enable him to meet the son and the daughter of the parties who are now aged 16 years and 15 years respectively. The reason given by the learned Judge Family Court is that the Court is not competent to modify the order passed by the learned Predecessor Court....
Narinder Singh Vs. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
P.S. Teji, J. 1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sh. Narinder Singh for quashing of FIR No.280/2013 dated 12.08.2013, under Sections 498-A/406 IPC registered at Police Station Nihal Vihar on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and respondent no.2, namely, Smt. Harpreet Kaur before the Hon ble Court of Ms. Vandana, MM (Mahila Court)-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts on 28.07.2014. 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 was solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 on 05.12.2012. It is alleged that the husband and in-laws of the complainant would torture and physically as well as mentally harass the complainant. The accused persons used to taunt the complainan...
Darshna and Another Vs. State (Govt of NCT Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
P.S. Teji, J. 1. By these petitions filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr. P.C.), the petitioners seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No. 711/2016 under Section 498A/304- B/34 of IPC registered at Police Station Mangolpuri, Delhi. 2. Though both the bail applications arise out of a common FIR, the bail application of petitioner-Darshna was reserved on 08.08.2016 and the bail application of petitioner Kamlesh was reserved on 12.08.2016. For keeping the record straight, the bail application of petitioner Darshna is taken first for consideration. 3. The case at hand, is yet another case in which a married lady took her life in just 5 months of her matrimonial life, due to demand of dowry and torture from her in-laws, which is so alleged by the complainant Inder Pal (brother of the deceased), in the FIR in question. Petitioner Darshna is the sister-in-law of the victim. 4. It is alleged by the brother of the deceased (complainant herein) that...
Surinder Kumar Beri and Another Vs. Deepak Beri and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
Manmohan Singh, J. (Oral) 1. Mr.Surinder Kumar Beri is the father of Mr.Deepak Beri and Mr.Atul Beri. The Award has been challenged by Mr.Surinder Kumar Beri and Ramesh Beri by filing the petition being O.M.P. (COMM.) No.382/2016 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Another petition being O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) No.326/2016 has been filed by Mr.Deepak Beri under Section 9 of the Act. 2. Section 9 petition filed by Mr.Deepak Beri was listed on 11th August, 2016 when it was informed that another objection petition under Section 34 of the Act filed by the father was also coming up, therefore, the matter was adjourned to 12th August, 2016. On 12th August, 2016, this Court was on leave and the matters were mentioned to Hon ble the Judge Incharge (Original Side) who has adjourned the same to be listed before the Regular Bench on 16th August, 2016 and passed certain directions to Mr.Deepak Beri and Mr.Atul Beri who were directed to exchange the list of employees of the u...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »