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.
Neeraj Kumar Vs. Pooja Verma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
Pratibha Rani, J. 1. In the instant appeal the appellant/husband has impugned the judgment dated December 01, 2011 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rohini, Delhi whereby the petition filed by him for dissolution of marriage on account of cruelty being committed by the respondent/wife was dismissed. 2. The appellant/husband got married to the respondent/wife on November 22, 2004 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage was consummated and a son was born on January 01, 2006. 3. In the petition filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 the instances of cruelty stated to have been committed by the respondent/wife cited by the appellant/husband are numerous starting right from the second day of the marriage. As per the appellant/husband, on the very next day of the marriage the respondent/wife started treating his mother, sister and sister-in-law in an insulting manner complaining that the language used by them was not to her liking and that her sister...
Praveen Kumar and Others Vs. The State (Govt of NCT 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 petitioners, namely, Sh. Praveen Kumar, Sh. Narender Pal, Smt. Santosh Devi, Sh. Rajiv Kumar, Ms. Upasna and Ms. Pinki for quashing of FIR No.7/2012 dated 05.01.2012, under Sections 498- A/406/34 IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act registered at Police Station Jyoti Nagar on the basis of the mediation report of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkadooma Courts, Delhi executed between petitioner nos.1 and 2 and respondent no.2, namely, Smt. Hema @ Seema on 10.04.2015. 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 was solemnized between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 on 24.02.2008 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. It is alleged that the in-laws of the comp...
Payal Abdullah and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
Indermeet Kaur, J. (Oral) W.P.(C) 5886/2016 and C.M. No.24201/2016 (stay) 1. There are three petitioners before this Court. Petitioner No. 1 is the estranged wife of Mr. Omar Abdullah; petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the sons of Mr. Omar Abdullah. Mr. Omar Abdullah is the Ex- Chief Minister of State of Jammu and Kashmir. Admittedly all the three petitioners are enjoying Z and Z+ security. Whereas petitioner No. 1 is enjoying Z security and petitioners No. 2 and 3 have been given a Z+ security. They are presently residents of 7, Akbar Road, New Delhi (type VIII bungalow). This accommodation had been allotted to their father namely Mr. Omar Abdullah by the Assistant Director of Estates, Directorate of Estates, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India on 22.11.1999. This was while he was holding the post of Minister of State for Commerce and Industry. Petitioners have been living in this bungalow since that time. 2. The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners have cont...
S.P. Ashta Vs. Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral) R.P.No.336/2016 1. Working as a Superintending Engineer with the Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board the claim of the appellant was that with effect from November 08, 1997 he should be placed in the pay scale Rs.14300-400-18300 and not Rs.12000-375-16500. 2. The claim was predicated on the plea that the appellant joined Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board as an Assistant Engineer on July 01, 1989 and was promoted firstly as an Executive Engineer and then as a Superintending Engineer on November 07, 1997. The appellant was relying on para 50.45 of the report of the Central Pay Commission to urge that he ought to have been placed in the pay scale Rs.14300-400-18300 with effect from November 08, 1997 and not after he had rendered 13 years service. 3. We had noted para 50.45 of the recommendations of the Central Pay Commission in our decision dated May 20, 2015 which reads as under:- 50.45 We would however, like to make an exception only in the case of Superinten...
Omwati Vs. Samay Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral) C.M. Appl. No. 30148/2016 (for exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. RSA No.232/2016 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) against the Judgment of the First Appellate Court da ted 5.5.2016 by which the first appellate court set aside the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 31.8.2015. Trial court by its judgment had decreed the suit for specific performance, possession, mandatory injunction and damages filed by the appellant/plaintiff. The first appellate court by the impugned judgment has therefore dismissed the suit which was decreed by the trial court. 2(i) The case of the appellant/plaintiff was that he purchased the suit property admeasuring 50 sq. yds being property no.25 out of khasra no.188 at Village Kirari, Suleman Nagar, Delhi known as Baldev Singh Park, Delhi (new number B-190, Shish Mahal Enclave, 25 Foota Road, Prem Nagar III, ...
Renu Yadav Vs. Arun Singh Yadav
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2016
Deepa Sharma, J. 1. This is a respondent wife s appeal, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, questioning the decree and order for dissolution of marriage by a Family Court, on the grounds spelt out by Sections 13 (1) (i a) and (i b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ( the Act ) on a petition preferred by the husband. 2. The facts necessary to decide the appeal are that the parties got married on 21.04.2002 at New Delhi and were blessed with a son- Aditya, on 16.07.2003. They resided together in premises belonging to the appellant s mother-in-law- who used to work as a government teacher in Haryana. The mother in law retired from service on 31.08.2006. The appellant s husband, his father and brothers lived in the matrimonial home, besides her. She was the eldest daughter in law in the house. The household did not employ any maid-servant. The husband claimed divorce on the ground that the wife was claiming one fourth share in the residential house or Rs. 20 lakhs in lieu of that and used...
Parveen Vs. Hukum Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-2016
Pratibha Rani, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/wife impugning the judgment and decree dated January 15, 2014 passed by the learned Judge, Family Courts, Dwarka whereby her marriage with the respondent/husband has been dissolved. 2. A petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage was filed by the respondent/husband before the family Court which was allowed granting a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. 3. It is admitted case of the parties that they got married on February 28, 1994 as per Hindu rites and customs. The parties were blessed with three daughters. The eldest one was born on December 07, 1994, second daughter was born on December 21, 1996 and the third daughter was born on August 30, 2004. While the appellant was employed as a Teacher (TGT) in Government School, the respondent was employed as Food Inspector in Directorate of Prevention of Food Adulteration, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The matrimonial life was smoo...
Federation of Hotels and Restaurants Association of India and Others V ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2016
S. Muralidhar, J. 1.1 The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the constitutional validity of Section 65 (105) (zzzzv) of the Finance Act 1994 (FA) whereby the provision to any person by a restaurant, by having the facility of air-conditioning in any part of its establishment serving food or beverage, including alcoholic beverages or both, in its premises has been made amenable to service tax. Also challenged is the constitutional validity of Section 65 (105) (zzzzw) of the FA whereby the provision by a hotel, inn, guest house, club or camp-site by whatever name called to any provision, accommodation for a continuous period of less than three months has been made amenable to service tax. 1.2 The additional prayers in the writ petition are for a declaration that Section 66 E (i) of the FA to the extent it seeks to constitute a service portion in an activity of supply of food or other articles as declared service to be bad in law. The Petitioner...
Mohd. Izhar Aleem and Another Vs. The State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2016
P.S. Teji, J. 1. By this petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr. P.C.), the petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 417/2016 under Section 3/14 Child Labour Act and 75, 79 of Juvenile Justice Act and Section 16, 17, 18 of Bonded Labour System Act, at Police Station Khajuri Khas, Delhi. 2. Upon an information about child labour in the area of Khajuri Khas, a meeting chaired by SDM, HQ/NE Seelampur, Delhi, Officials of Delhi Labour Department, Delhi Police and Members of NGO Justice Ventures India Trust was held on 18.05.2016 and consequently decided to conduct raid on 19.05.2016 to rescue the children. During the rescue operation 8 children / bonded labourers were rescued from manufacturing units of ladies Bindi. SDM, HQ/NE, Seelam Pur, vide his written order directed the police to registered an FIR under the aforesaid sections. Medical examination of the rescued children was conducted,...
Nisha Bansal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2016
P.S. Teji, J. 1. By this petition filed under Section 438 of Cr. P.C., the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in a case registered as FIR No. 211/2016 dated 12.05.2016 under Section 306/313/498-A/304-B/34 of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Mandawli Fazalpur, Delhi. 2. The prosecution case is based on the suicide note of Kajal Gupta, who committed suicide by hanging herself in parental house on 12.05.2016 holding the petitioner as well as her husband responsible. Petitioner is the first wife of Ankit Bansal. Ankit Bansal married Kajal Gupta on 20.11.2015. In February 2016, first wife (i.e. petitioner herein) came to know about the Ankit Bansal s second marriage and talked to the deceased on phone. On the other hand accused Ankit Bansal concealed his first marriage to Kajal Gupta, which caused tension to the victim and she committed suicide by hanging herself on 12.05.2016. Accused Ankit Bansal has been arrested and is in custody since 19.05.2016, however the petitioner was not foun...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »