Delhi Court November 2009 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.
Naveet Kumar Tiwari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2009
Reported in: 166(2010)DLT80
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Pertaining to the same process of recruitment for employment to the post of CT/Driver under the General Category, claim of Rakesh Kumar Mishra, the writ petitioner of WP(C) No. 6733/2008, was decided vide order dated 05.11.2008 passed by a co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court. The order reads as under:R-2 issued a public notice in the Employment News inviting applications for 63 posts of CT/Driver under the General Category. One of the eligibility conditions prescribed for recruitment was a minimum height of 170 cms.The petitioner applied in pursuance to the said advertisement and underwent the process laid down in the advertisement and was thereafter issued an offer of appointment dated 29.01.2007 intimating to the petitioner that he has been selected in the recruitment process so initiated. The petitioner was asked to join on or before 01.03.2007.The petitioner claims to have reported for duty but was not permitted to join only on account of the fact that ...
Raj Kumar @ Raju Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2009
Reported in: 166(2010)DLT107
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 3.02.1996 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC for murder of one Kirpal (deceased) and the order of even date sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in case of default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months.2. The case of the prosecution as established by the testimony of the eye witness Satish Kumar (PW3) is that the said PW3 and the deceased went to the shop of kerosene dealer along with the PW2 Chander Pal, where one Nandu and Balli met them. After purchasing the oil, there was some altercation between Balli and the deceased, which resulted in the deceased slapping the Balli. On this occurrence, Nandu, (who is brother of the appellant) reprimanded the deceased, but the deceased told him to bring whoever he wanted in support of himself. Balli went away and brought the appellant along with him who enquired from the d...
Shiva Kant Jha Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2009
Reported in: [2009]185TAXMAN424(Delhi)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution styled as a Public Interest Litigation has been filed seeking multifarious reliefs including of declaration arising from the grievance of the petitioner about the mode and manner in which the governance of international treaties are sought to be made applicable to the citizens of India. It is the case of the petitioner, who appears in person, that the powers and authority of the Central Government are being abused and are sought to be exercised in violation of the constitutional mandate by entering into Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (more specifically in relation to the provisions relating to Mutual Agreement Procedure), ratification and adoption of Uruguay Round Final Act (WTO Treaty) and the provisions relating to the MAP set forth in the CBDT's Instruction as also under the Income Tax Rules 1962.2. The petitioner took us through the pleadings and the various synopsis filed by him to firstly co...
Cec Ltd. Vs. Indian Railway Corporation Company Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2009
Reported in: 166(2010)DLT132
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.I.A. No. 768/1997 in CS(OS) No. 292/20021. These objections have been filed to the first Award dated 11.11.1996 passed by the sole Arbitrator.2. The brief history with regard to what has transpired during the hearing of the objections is necessary before I deal with these objections on merits. The Arbitrator, in this case, had given a third Award dated 4/28.7.1997 and objections of IRCON to which award were dismissed by me alongwith objections of M/s. CEC Ltd. by my order dated 29.10.2009.3. It has indeed been difficult to go through the record of this case because the complete arbitration record is not available in the Court. In view of the aforesaid position this Court had, way back on 12.9.2006, specifically by order stated that since the arbitration record is not available, to facilitate the hearing of the matter both the parties were directed to give a compilation of their respective arbitral record which they would be relying upon.4. For the first time, I hear...
Pratap Vs. Shiv Shanker
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2009
Reported in: 164(2009)DLT479
Hima Kohli, J.1. This appeal arises from the judgment dated 31.07.1998 passed by the trial court, dismissing a suit for partition instituted by the appellant, Shri Pratap against his father, Shri Shiv Shanker (defendant in the court below). In the plaint, the appellant sought a decree against the respondent in respect of his one half share in a residential premises bearing No. 486, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, constructed on a plot of land measuring 125 square yards. The case of the appellant, as set out in the plaint was that the aforesaid property was an ancestral property, which the respondent had got in partition amongst his other brothers and that the appellant, being the son of the respondent, was a coparcener in the suit property and thus, entitled to a decree of partition to the extent of the half share therein. It was also averred that the respondent had deserted his wife, Smt. Sukh Devi, who is the mother of the appellant and the appellant and that he was threatening to...
Jaggi Ayurvedic Pharmacy Vs. Jaggi Ayurvedic Research Foundation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2009
Reported in: 166(2010)DLT136
ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, plaintiff sought injunction against defendant restraining defendant from use of trademark, word/ mark, house mark 'JAGGI' and restraining defendant from using the logo, tradedress and carton with trademark 'JAGGI'.2. Plaintiff has claimed itself to be a partnership firm of three partners namely Mr. Om Prakash Jaggi, Mr. Sudesh Kumar Jaggi and Ms. Priya Rani Jaggi. It is stated that this partnership firm was formed in 1955 under an oral agreement between Mr. Darshan Lal Jaggi and Mr. Om Prakash Jaggi and it was reduced into writing in 1959 and since then the partnership firm namely 'Jaggi Ayrvedic Pharmacy. has been using the trade name 'JAGGI' and logos, trade dress, work/mark 'JAGGI' and it became owner and proprietor of the word/ mark 'JAGGI' and became copyright owner of trade dress, logos etc.3. Defendant on the other hand has resisted granting of any inj...
Chander Kant and Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2009
Reported in: 164(2009)DLT657
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.I.A. No. 10234/1997 in CS(OS) No. 1380A/19971. These are objections filed by the respondent/DDA under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the Award dated 31.1.1995 made and published by the sole Arbitrator.2. The principal contention of the objector is with respect to the claims which are allowed, namely, claim Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 6 to 9. The Award is a non-speaking Award inasmuch as the Arbitrator has either given his conclusion or the reasons which are given are not intelligible reasons that can be said to have nexus with the claims which have been awarded. I do not propose to burden this judgment with detailed findings on each of the claims because a reference to the Award is sufficient to show that the reasons which are given are not such reasons which can be called as reasons in law. Ms. Anusuya Salwan, Counsel for the objector has relied upon a recent Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Delhi Development Authority v. Sunder Lal K...
Daya Kod Vs. Financial Commissioner and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2009
Reported in: 166(2010)DLT90
ORDERSanjiv Khanna, J.1. The petitioner's licence to sell kerosene oil under the Delhi Kerosene Oil (Export & Price) Control Order, 1962 has been cancelled on the basis of surprise check carried out by the Enforcement Branch of the Government of NCT of Delhi on 13th December, 2005. The security deposit has also been forfeited.2. Checking by the Enforcement Branch on 13th December, 2005 at the shop of the petitioner is not denied. As per the inspection report, the petitioner had received 1615 litres of kerosene oil upto 23rd November, 2005 and only 245 litres of kerosene oil were found by the enforcement team. The petitioner was accordingly required to account for the said shortfall of 1370 litres of kerosene oil, which were meant to be distributed under the Public Distribution System.3. The stand taken by the petitioner is that he had applied for medical leave to close the fair price shop and the said application was allowed/sanctioned by letter dated 22nd November, 2005. Sanction of t...
Anita J. Gursahani and anr. Vs. Chief Information Commissioner
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-2009
Reported in: 166(2010)DLT77
ORDERSanjiv Khanna, J.1. The petitioners herein have been convicted under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and their appeal against conviction is pending before the Bombay High Court.2. The petitioners herein had also filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking the following information:In view of the reasons mentioned at para (3)(i)(a-d) hereinabove, the applicants want the inspection, records, documents, notings, extracts & photocopies under Section 2(f)(i) & (j) of the Act for the information sought & inter connected documents/issues below i.e.a) Letter dt. 20.04.1994 of CBI-ACB, Bombay, bearing Ref. No. 3/58(A)/91/AC-Bom,. Addressed to Mr. D.G. Jugran (IPS), Div. Vig. Air India Building, Nariman Point, Bombay-21, a copy endorsed to CMD, CCI, Air-India Building, Nariman Point Bombay.b) Letter dt. 05.10.1995 bearing Ref. No. 3/58(A)/91 Bombay addressed by SP-CBI/ACB, Bombay to CMD, CCI Ltd, Air India Bldg., Nariman Point, Bom.c) Letter dt. 04.01.1995 beari...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›