Delhi Court October 2006 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.
Yogesh Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ510
ORDERIn pursuance of the proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, I, P.J. Singh, Addl. DIGP hereby terminate forthwith the services of No. 035080142 Rt (Ct/GD) Yogesh Kumar Singh and direct that he shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his service, or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month. Sd/-(P.J. SINGH)ADIGPGC CRPF New DelhiNo. 035080142 Rt (Ct/GD) Yogesh KumarGC CRPF New Delhi (Through Principal, RTC-IV, CRPF)Dated, the 6th Dec. 2003No. R.II.1/03-EC-5/1Copy forwarded to:Principal, RTC-4, CRPF, C/O 56 APO in duplicate for necessary action. Original copy of the order meant for the individual may be handed over to No. 035080142 (Rt(Ct.GD) Yogesh Kumar Singh and his signature in token of having received the same, may be obtained on a...
Shriram Pistons and Rings Ltd. Vs. Buckeye Machines (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: 136(2007)DLT254; 2007(99)DRJ124
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Disputes between the parties were referred to a panel of Arbitrators who published an award on 15.9.1995.2. Claimant M/s. Sriram Pistons and Rings Ltd. filed a petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 with a prayer that the Arbitral Tribunal be directed to file the award in this Court and further proceedings be taken as per law.3. Directions were issued to the Arbitrators to file the award in this Court. The award was filed but unfortunately was not placed in file of CS(OS) No. 2706-A/1995. Award was registered as a fresh suit being CS(OS) No. 2664A/1996. Notice of filing of the award was served upon the parties in CS(OS) No. 2664A/1996. Vide is No. 2828/1998, M/s. Buckeye Machines Pvt. Ltd. have filed objections to the award.4. Proceedings in CS(OS) No. 2706-A/1995 have thereforee become infructuous.5. To appreciate the objections, backdrop facts are that 3 work orders, one dated 13th September, 1989 and two dated 23rd March, 1990 each were placed...
Smt. Janak Rani Chadha Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Delhi107
Rekha Sharma, J.1. Smt.Janak Rani and Shri Surjit Kumar Chadha lost their daughter and what has added to their misery is that that precious life was lost at the hands of their son-in-law to whom they had given her hand in marriage. The deceased was Smt.Shamma Chadha. She was married to Shri Prabhat Uppal. The deceased has left behind property bearing plot No. 4 Road P1, admeasuring 250.56 sq.mtrs. situated at Village Shahpur now known as DLF Qutab Enclave Complex Tehsil and District Gurgaon. The said property was purchased by her prior to her marriage and as she died intestate, her parents are now claiming 'Letters of Administration' with regard to it under Sections 273 and 278 of the Indian Succession Act.2. Notice of the probate petition was issued to the husband of the deceased and so also to the public at large through publication in the newspaper 'The Statesman' inviting of objections, if any. In response to the notice, the husband filed his reply stating that he had no objection ...
Tej Shoe Exporters (P) Ltd. Vs. Air India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(94)DRJ512
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Following 9 issues require adjudication:1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 30 of Schedule II Chapter III of Carriage by Air Act, 1972?2. Whether the suit is valued properly for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction or not?3. Whether the plaint is signed, verified and suit instituted by the competent person in accordance with law or not?4. Whether there is any privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2?5. Whether the actions of defendants in delivering the goods to the ultimate consignee without receipt of payment was illegal without authority and if so to what effect?6. Whether the defendants are jointly or severally liable and to what extent?7. What are the losses which the plaintiff has suffered on account of wrongful delivery of its consignment by the defendants?8. Whether in view of the insurance cover purchased by the plaintiff, is the present suit maintainable?9. Whether the claim of the plaintiff stands sati...
Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: [2008]296ITR697(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the Punjab and Sind Bank is directed against the judgment dated February 24, 2006, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal') in ITA Nos. 1910/Delhi/99 and 1960/Delhi/99 for the assessment year 1995-96. This appeal was filed on September 14, 2006.2. In the memorandum of appeal, it is stated as under:That the appellant bank being a public sector undertaking is required to obtain approval from the Committee on Disputes (COD) for pursuing the present appeal. However, the appellant is filing the present appeal for saving limitation and shall be seeking COD clearance within one month from the filing of the present appeal, in terms of the ratio of the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC v. Collector of Central Excise : 1994(70)ELT45(SC) .3. In similar matters, previous Benches of this Court have been passing standard orders 'disposing' of such appeals in the following terms:The learned Counsel for the appellant states that the Committ...
Smt. Murti Devi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)SLJ307(Delhi)
G.S. Sistani, J.1. The petitioner is the widow of late JEM Man Singh. She has filed the present writ petition, praying to issue a writ or direction in the nature ofcertiorari, quashing the order dated 17.1.1996 and further to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to restore ordinary family pension in favor of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.9.1990 along with arrears and 12% interest there upon.2. The facts as set out in the petition are that the husband of the petitioner was enrolled in Honk Kong Singapore Royal Artillery on 19.11.1932 and was granted Junior Commission on 1.1.1941, he was discharged on 21.11.1947 after rendering 15 years 3 days of service. The late husband of the petitioner was granted service pension from Army-Pension Office, Ministry of defense, Glasgow, till he expired on 18.2.1985. The petitioner's case for grant of ordinary family pension was submitted to the Officer in charge, Record Room, Artillery, Nasik Road Camp (Maharashtra), (respondent N...
Radical Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pharmaceutical Employees Co-op. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ARBLR171(Delhi); 137(2007)DLT709
Gita Mittal, J.1. This petition has been filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 seeking appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. The respondents had set up a plea of the claims being barred by limitation. On 8th May, 2006 it was recorded by this Court that the question can be decided based on documents which are not in dispute at all. Accordingly, the matter was taken up for hearing on 26th September, 2006 when it was pointed out by both the parties that based on the documents which are on record, the petition itself can be disposed of. Consequently, both sides were heard on the issues raised in the present matter.2. To the extent that there is no dispute on the factual matrix, the facts are briefly noted hereafter. The respondent had floated a tender for construction of 300 multi storeyed flats at Patpar Ganj, Delhi in 1985. On 14th January, 1986, the petitioner was awarded this work. Two agreements, one relating to civil works whi...
Arunodaya Co-opeartive Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. R.G. Desai and A ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ARBLR306(Delhi); 2006(92)DRJ273
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Disputes and differences between the petitioner (herein after referred to as the owner) and the respondent (herein after referred to as the contractor) were referred to the arbitration of Sh. Swami Dial and Sh. O.P. Jain. Sh. Swamy Dial is a retired Chief Engineer (CPWD). Sh. O.P. Jain is a retired professor in Structural Engineering from I.I.T. Delhi and is a well known personality in the field of structures.2. I am noting the qualifications of the learned arbitrators as they are experts in the field of civil engineering and this fact has a material bearing on the objections raised.3. The two arbitrators entered upon reference in December 1989 and held over 30 sittings till award was published on 14.02.98.4. I may note that delay was occasioned in publishing the award because at one stage of the proceedings, contractor refused to extend time for the arbitrators to publish the award. owner had to file a petition under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act 1940 seeki...
Mahabir Parshad and anr. Vs. Ved Wati Pathak and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: 135(2006)DLT453
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The two civil revision petitions pertain to different portions of the same property bearing No. 4315, Gali Bhaironwali, Jogiwara, Delhi and arise from two different impugned orders passed by the Additional Rent Controller (for short, 'ARC') in respect of the petitions filed for bona fide requirement by the landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act').2. The first petition C.R.P. No. 49/1989 pertains to one room and kitchen on the ground floor. An eviction petition was filed on 17.10.1980 and was dismissed on 14.11.1985. The aggrieved landlord has filed the civil revision petition.3. The other petition C.R.P. No. 337/2000 was filed on 23.10.1984 and there were certain subsequent developments as a result of which by an amendment on 05.10.1987, these subsequent developments were brought on record. The eviction petition was allowed on 02.11.1999 and the subject matter is a hall, kitchen and r...
Court on Its Own Motion Vs. Mr. Gulshan Bajwa
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: 141(2007)DLT111
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The meaning of the expression 'contempt' in normal parlance is an act of state of despising, the conduct that defies the authority or dignity of a Court. It is so because such conduct interferes with the administration of justice and is liable to be punished. Even in its liberal construction, it conveys a strong feeling of combined dislike and lack of respect. In order to protect the dignity of Court and ensure proper administration of justice, the Legislature has enacted 'the Contempt of Courts Act', which deals with the various situations and varied conduct of parties, counsel or any person to ensure that the orders of the court are implemented and administration of justice is not hampered. Every citizen has a Fundamental Right of personal liberty and freedom of expression. Despite such Right, this Act granted jurisdiction to the court to punish for contemptuous behavior made in writing or verbally. While reasonably protecting these rights and circumventing the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »