Delhi Court November 2005 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.
Samridhi Devi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2005
Reported in: 125(2005)DLT284; 2006(3)SLJ225(Delhi)
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioner, in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, calls into question the order dated 28-2-2001 passed by the third respondent as not proportionate to the gravity of the established misconduct of the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent had been charged with sexual harassment of the petitioner, and found guilty. The penalty of dismissal imposed on him was modified by the impugned order into compulsory retirement. Pleadings of parties2. The respondent No.4, while working as Dairy Supervisor in Delhi Milk Scheme, was issued a charge sheet on 20.01.2000 alleging attempted sexual assault and outraging the modesty of the petitioner, who was working as Diary Mate on 31.12.1999 when she was alone in the Office of Central Dairy. The petitioner had been recently widowed, and had been appointed to work as a 'mate' by the Delhi Milk Scheme. The charges were denied, by way of a letter dated 31.01.2000 stating that allegations were completely bia...
Aman Services Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTLJ349(Del); 125(2005)DLT177
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed praying for a mandamus directing the respondent to accept the tender of the petitioner submitted on 2.2.2004 for supply of 100 vehicles (70 Ambassador cars and 30 Maruti Gypsies) on hire basis and award the contract to the petitioner. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. It appears that the respondent Commissioner of Police, Delhi invited tenders in January,2004 from transporters/fleet owners for supply of about 100 petrol driven vehicles (70 Ambassador Cars and 30 Maruti Gypsies) for 24 hours operation for VIP security duty for a period of one year. The terms and conditions of the tender are contained in Annexure P-1 to the writ petition. 4. The tender was to be in two parts ' the technical bid and the price bid. The technical bid consisted of earnest money deposit, bank guarantee, income tax clearance and registration certificate under the Delhi Works Contract Act. The price bid contained...
Gurbaksh Singh Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Delhi73; 125(2005)DLT1; 2005(85)DRJ278
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. Rule.2. This is the second round of litigation, the first one, CW No.1743/2000, having been allowed by Judgment dated 16th May, 2002. The Petitioner has prayed for the allotment of an alternative plot of land in the context of the land acquired from him. In the said judgment which is between the parties hereto and has attained finality, S.K.Mahajan, J. had specifically held that the entry of ownership in the revenue records would not be an essential requirement for consideration of the grant of an alternative plot. In the concluding part of the Judgment it has been observed as follows:'I, thereforee, do not want to decide the question as to whether or not the petitioner would be entitled to the allotment of an alternative plot of land on the ground that the land was not acquired for the purposes of planned development of Delhi. If it is a ground which disentitles the petitioner, he may not be entitled to allotment of alternate plot of land, however, it is entirely...
Union Bank of India Vs. Sushila Goela and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2005
Reported in: 125(2005)DLT161; 2005(85)DRJ318
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge Delhi in Suit No. 560/04/01.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The Plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for ejectment, recovery of Rs. 58000/- and damages of Rs. 29,000/- per day w.e.f. 1.7.2001 in respect of premises No. 625-632, Ward VI, Chandni Chowk, Delhi against the defendant on 2.7.2001. 4. The Plaintiff/respondent are owners of the suit premises. They inducted the defendant bank as a tenant of the said premises in an area of 5528 sq. ft. 5.The lease deed executed on 10.9.1990 between the Lessers and the appellant bank (lessees) stated that the lease is for 10 years commencing from 1.7.1986 i.e. ending on 30.6.1996. There was a clause in the lease deed which stated that the lessee shall have the right to renew the lease of the premises for another period of five years after 30.6.1996 on the same terms and conditions except increase of rent by 20...
M.i. HussaIn Vs. N. Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Delhi86; 125(2005)DLT223; 2005(85)DRJ282
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. These appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 20.7.2005 in WP(C) No. 11718/2005. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.3. The appellant is an unaided private recognised school in Delhi and the writ petitioner is a student of the said school having joined it in 1993 in Nursery Class and had passed Class X examination in May 2005 conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) securing an overall percentage of 65.2% marks with 60% marks in science and mathematics. The writ petitioner applied for admission in science stream in Class XI in the appellant school, but has been offered commerce stream without mathematics. It is alleged by the writ petitioner that as many as 90 seats in the science stream are still lying vacant and hence, the writ petitioner should be admitted in one of those seats. However, the writ petitioner was informed by the Principal by...
SPL's Sidhartha Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOi) and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Delhi83; I(2006)BC484; 2005(2)CTLJ328(Del); 125(2005)DLT104; 2005(85)DRJ314
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed praying for a mandamus directing respondent No. 2, the Food Corporation of India (FCI) to award the tender in question in favor of the petitioner as the petitioner is the only tenderer who qualifies the guidelines laid down in the tender document. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the letter dated 21.7.2005 by which the Central Government directed the FCI to keep the tender in abeyance. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act having its registered office at Greater Kailash, New Delhi. It is engaged in the business of flooring. It is alleged in paragraph 2 of the petition that the petitioner is a sole patent holder of the rodent repellent technology and thereforee no other company can manufacture the said product. It is further alleged that the petitioner is well known for its expertise, price and competit...
Ms. Lalita Sharma Vs. the Managing Committee of Rukmani Devi Jaipuria ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2005
Reported in: 125(2005)DLT115
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In this contempt proceedings under Sections 11 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act 1971 read with Article 215 of Constitution of India, the Petitioner's complains willful and deliberate violation of the Court's order dated 1st March, 2005 and 19th April, 20042. By a common order I have dismissed the petitions namely WP(C) 3506/05 and WP(C) 6630/05, filed by the contempt petitioners in these proceedings. They had ought for the relief for continuation and regularization in the posts held by them, in the Respondent school. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court as followed by this Court it has been held that such reliefs admissible in the facts of this case. Complaints in these proceedings is that in spite of orders directing status quo as far as the Petitioner's terms of employment are concerned, the Respondents breached the direction and have not assigned them duties in the school.3. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and considering the material...
Mono Caps (India) Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Delhi44; I(2006)BC425; [2006]133CompCas478(Delhi); 125(2005)DLT217
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner has preferred this review application, aggrieved by the order dated 30th April, 2004, by which the writ petition was dismissed. The review application is accompanied by an application for condensation of delay, inasmuch as the review application was filed on 26th October, 2004. It is urged in the application for condensation of delay that petitioner had preferred LPA. No. 800/04, against the dismissal of the writ petition. After some arguments, petitioner sought leave to withdraw the appeal before the Division Bench on 18th October, 2004, with liberty to move a review application. Petitioner's contention was that the benefit of one time settlement had been denied by the impugned judgment on the ground that the decree had been executed, while it had not been so executed. 2. As the parties are agreed that the review application may be disposed of on merits, the delay in preference of the review application is condoned. 3. Mr. J.P. Gupta, learned counsel fo...
Shri Kanwal Malhotra Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Delhi71; 125(2005)DLT281; 2005(85)DRJ598
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. This is an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (herein after referred to as 'CPC'). The application has been filed on behalf of the objector essentially on the ground that the application for grant of probate in respect of the alleged last will left by one late Mr. K.S.Kulkarni is barred by law in terms of the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (d). The provision provides that the plaint shall be rejected inter alias where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. In this case the objector submits that the application for grant of probate is barred by limitation. He submitted that the period of limitation prescribed for such an application would be that as prescribed by article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. Article 137 reads as under:-'137. Any other application for which Three years When the right to no period of limitation is provided apply accrues'2. According to Mr. Aggar...
Nct of Delhi Through the Dept of Excise Vs. S.P. Khanna
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTLJ334(Del); 125(2005)DLT137
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. These appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment dated 26.9.2005 delivered by the learned single Judge in WP(C) Nos. 17960/2005, 14310/2005 and 17805/2005. Since all these appeals involve common questions of law and fact, we are disposing them of together.2. The writ petitioners had prayed for a mandamus directing the Government of NCT of Delhi through the Commissioner of Excise to grant L-52 licenses to the petitioners in terms of respondent's policy vide public notice dated 22.11.2004. They have also prayed for quashing of Condition No.15 attached to the terms and conditions for grant of license in form L-52 as per respondent's public notice for the year 2004-05. 3. In WP(C) No. 17960/2005 titled S.P. Khanna v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi it is alleged in para 3 (a) of the writ petition that the respondent Government of NCT of Delhi had issued a policy on 22.11.2004 for grant of L-52 licenses in Delhi for retail vending of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMF...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »