Advanced Search Results

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Vivek Bhatia and anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Right to InformationService

Acts : Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005 - Sections 4(1), 10, 18, 19 and 19(8)

Reported in : 160(2009)DLT108

Advocate for Respondent : Shangara Singh, Adv. for respondent No. 1 and ; Prof. K.K. Nigam, Adv. for CIC

ORDERSanjiv Khanna, J.1. Mr. Vivek Bhatia, respondent No. 1, is a Railway employee and was working as Chief Depot Material Supervisor, Stores Department, Diesel Loco Modernization Works, Patiala. He had moved an application under Right to...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Central Information Commission and anr ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Right to information

Acts : Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005 - Sections 2, 3, 4, 4(1), 4(2), 4(3), 4(4), 7(3), 8, 11, 12(4), 15(4), 18, 18(3), 18(4), 19, 19(8), 19(10), 20, 27, 27(2) and 28; Delhi Development Authority Act; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908; Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005; Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005; Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 239; Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007 - Regulation 20, 21, 22, 23

Advocate for Respondent : K.K. Nigam, Adv. for Respondent No. 1 and; Sarabjit Roy, Adv. and;Pary-in-Person for Respondent No. 2

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.PREFACE1. Information is power. This is truer now, in this information age, than ever before. In a democracy this power of information which the public authorities possess is to be shared with the...

Indian Olympic Association Vs Veeresh Malik and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Right to Information

Acts : Central Information Commission - section 5(4) ; Comptroller and Auditor Generals (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971 - sections 14, 14(1)

Advocate for Respondent : Mr. P.P. Malhotra, Mr. Dalip Mehra, Mr. Rajiv Ranan Mishra, Mr. Ravi Varma, Mr. Milind Jha, Mr. K.K. Nigam, Advs.

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers Yes may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be Yes reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. The present judgment...

Tumlare Software Services Private Limited Vs. Magic Software Services

Court : Delhi

Subject : Arbitration

Acts : Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 11, 11(9) and 16; Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 592 to 602; Indian Companies Act, 1913 - Sections 277(1)

Reported in : 2001VAD(Delhi)937; 92(2001)DLT572; 2001(59)DRJ793; 2002(1)RAJ509

Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Arvind Nigam,; Mr. Abhijit and ; Mr. Samrat Nigam,

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. Petitioner No.1 claims itself a wholly owned subsidiary Company of petitioner No.2 having its Registered Office at New Delhi. Petitioner No.2 is a foreign Company having its registered office at Denmark and is...