Delhi Court March 2007 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.
Shri Kishan Pal Singh S/O Shri Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Chief
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2007
Reported in: (2007)(3)SLJ54CAT
1. By virtue of this OA, Constable in Delhi Police has challenged an order passed by the respondents on 7.7.2004 whereby his services had been terminated under Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.Also assailed is an order dated 27.1.2005 whereby his request for reinstatement has been turned down on the ground that he has concealed the fact of involvement in the criminal case intentionally, which amounts to misleading the Department.2. A brief factual matrix of the case transpires that the applicant had applied for the post of Constable (Executive) and Constable (Dog Handler) in pursuance of an Advertisement issued by the Delhi Police in 2002. He was called for the written test and on qualifying it, he had appeared for interview on 23.8.2002. On 24.9.2002 with all credentials when the applicant appeared before the respondents, he was intimated thereafter on 14.1.2003 that he has been provisionally selected for the post of Constable (Executive) and was asked to fill up the att...
Bharat Bhushan Sharma Vs. Pratibha
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2007
Reported in: I(2007)DMC767
S. Muralidhar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.9.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in HMA No. 485/2001. By the impugned judgment, the learned ADJ dismissed the appellant's petition seeking divorce from the respondent on the grounds of cruelty.Background facts2. The marriage of the appellant with respondent was solemnized on 24.11.1999 according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies. It is the case of the appellant that that six days after the marriage on 30.11.1999, parents of the respondent took her away on the pretext of her having to attend classes for a computer course. Thereafter, the respondent joined appellant on 3.2.2000. It is stated that she behaved like stranger; she was insisting on living separately; hardly entered the kitchen to help his mother in the household work and started creating scenes in the house unnecessarily. She again left for maternal house with her brother on 15.3.2000 and the appellant brought her back on 3.4.2000. ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Flex Plastic and Packaging (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2007
Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Del)607
ORDER1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dt. 28th Feb., 2006 passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'F' in ITA No. 3044/Del/2002 relevant for the asst. yr. 1996-97.2. The assessed had taken a loan of Rs. 35 lakhs from M/s Vandana Investment & Finance Company. The AO doubted the genuineness of this transaction and asked the assessed to show that it is genuine and that the party advancing the loan is creditworthy. In response, the assessed filed the bank statement of the sole proprietor of the firm which showed that she had Rs. 72 lakhs in her bank account at that point of time. This fact was completely glossed over by the AO.Instead, the AO raised some doubt about why the assessed took a loan from a firm at Mumbai when it had taken an interest-free loan from its sister-concern in Delhi. On this basis, the AO rejected the contention of the assessed and came to the conclusion that the amount of Rs. 35 lakhs should be added to the income of the assessed under Section 68 of the IT Act, 196...
B.S. Yaduvanshi Vs. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2007
Reported in: 139(2007)DLT462
Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. By this appeal the appellant prays for setting aside and quashing order dated 3rd April, 1992 passed by the respondent Corporation compulsorily retiring the appellant from its service. Order dated 1st May, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant is also under challenge in this appeal. 2. The appellant joined the respondent Corporation as Assistant (Accounts) on 19th November, 1966. He was promoted as Accountant in November, 1969 and later he was promoted as Accounts Officer in January, 1978. By Officer Order No. 67 dated 3rd April, 1992, issued in the name of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the respondent Corporation, the appellant was compulsorily retired from service in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 56(J) of the Fundamental Rules. The said order was challenged by the appellant by filing a writ petition which was registered as WP(C) No. 12/1993. The said writ petition was however dismisse...
Shibu Soren Vs. C.B.i.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2007
Reported in: 2007(95)DRJ545
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Vide judgment dated 28th November, 2006 and order of sentence dated 5th December, 2006, appellant Shibu Soren had been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 120B read with Section 364/302 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5 lakh and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I for one year for the offence under Section 120-B read with Section 364/302 IPC. Appellant preferred an appeal, which was admitted to hearing on 25th January, 2007. Notice was issued in the application for suspension of sentence and conviction. Respondent-CBI has filed a detailed reply to the application on merits.2. Mr. Dinesh Mathur, learned senior counsel for the appellant as also Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned Addl. Solicitor General were heard at length. 3. Appellant seeking suspension of sentence assails the impugned judgment as erroneous case being bereft of any evidence of criminal conspiracy implicating the appellant. Appellant had b...
Shri Akshoy Kumar Paul and anr. Vs. the New India Assurance Company
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ583; AIR2007Delhi136
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The case of the petitioners is that their Mediclaim policy was not renewed on the ground that the petitioner had suffered heart ailments during the pendency of the policy. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Biman Krishan Bose v. United India Assurance Co. Ltd. : (2001)6SCC477 , Mukut Lal Duggal v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. : 117(2004)DLT74 and Ashok Kumar Dhingra v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and Ors. : AIR2004Delhi161 .2. The learned Counsel for the respondents raised two contentions. The first contention was that this petition was not maintainable inasmuch as the mediclaim policy is a contract between the insured and the insurer and that falls in the realm of private law and no public law element is involved. The second contention raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent [Insurance Company] is that the condition of exclusion of cardiac ailments was consented to by the pe...
Kundan Lal Vs. Subhash Chander and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2007
Reported in: 139(2007)DLT53
J.M. Malik, J.1. This order shall decide application moved under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC for substitution of legal representatives of the appellant. The said application is also accompanied by an application for condensation of delay in its filing.2. The appellant expired on 7th June, 2004. The application under Order 22 rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC was moved on 26th July, 2004. The applicants have enumerated three causes for condensation of delay, firstly, the registry had raised certain objections and the application was required to be refiled, secondly there was communication gap and it entailed some time and lastly there were unavoidable circumstances such as removal of objections etc. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn in by Smt. Rita Arora, one of the legal representatives of the appellant.3. The respondents have contested these applications. It is alleged that the application is hopelessly barred by time. The application gives no reason much...
Mahinder Partap Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2007
Reported in: 139(2007)DLT232
Rekha Sharma, J.1. The petitioner - Mahinder Partap is working as tyreman in Delhi Transport Corporation. He is aggrieved by the remarks made in his confidential report for the period 1-1-2000 to 31-12-2000. The offending remarks against which he has preferred the present writ petition read as under:1. Has he carried out his work satisfactorily during the period? If not, in what respect failed? No, lack of interest 2. Keenness & energy Hasty & lacks interest2. According to the petitioner, the remarks that he 'lacked interest' were based on no material. It is submitted that except on 6th May, 2000, when he was late to office by one and half hours, no other incident took place during the aforementioned assessment period that could be viewed or construed as 'lack of interest' on his part. No memo was issued to him pointing out any dereliction of duty on his part. It is also submitted that the Assessing Officer was biased against him. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent has tried to just...
Shri G.C. Khanna and ors. Vs. Electric Construction and Equipment Co. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2007
Reported in: 139(2007)DLT128
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioners are the landlords. Respondent is the tenant.2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 3.6.2006 passed by the Rent Controller, Delhi dismissing an application dated 12.1.2006 filed by the petitioners seeking permission to lead evidence pertaining to subsequent events which have transpired during the pendency of the eviction petition.3. Request has been declined.4. Reason for declining the request is that on an earlier occasion, being aggrieved by not allowing eviction sought for on ground of bona fide requirement, the landlords had filed a revision petition registered as C.R. No.3/2000. The same resulted in the dismissal order being set aside followed by a remand containing a direction to the Rent Control Tribunal to re- decide the matter after dealing with the contentions urged by the landlords with regard to the availability of alternative suitable residential accommodation at the back portion of property No. 7, Sri Ram Road, Delhi.5....
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kaushalya Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1267
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. A short question arises for consideration in the present appeal. 2. Determining compensation under Section 163A of the M.V. act 1988, can the Tribunal assess compensation in excess of an annual income of Rs. 40,000/- as stipulated in the IInd schedule to the M.V. act 1988? 3. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported as 1 (2004) ACC 728, Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the answer is in the negative. 4. Since the question afore-noted stand conclusively answered by the Supreme Court, I need not pen down a lengthy judgment. 5. Suffice would it be to note that in Deepal Girishbhai Soni's case (supra) Supreme Court referred to the legislative history of the law pertaining to awarding compensation to victims and/or their families due to injuries or death suffered by reason of rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of a motor vehicle. It was noted that law as originally enacted required compensation to be paid o...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »