Delhi Court May 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.
Sarat Chandra Bose Patsamatla Vs. National Board of Examination
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-2009
Reported in: 160(2009)DLT368
ORDER1. The Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the original writ petitioner against the order of the learned single Judge dated 25th March, 2009 refusing to permit him to appear in the FMGE- Screening Test conducted by the respondent No. 1 on 29th March, 2009 and at later stages. Pursuant to the interim order of the Division Bench, the appellant was provisionally allowed to appear in the FMGE-Screening Test conduced by the Board on 29th March, 2009 and he failed in the examination. Next examination is scheduled to be held in September, 2009.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the parties agreed that the writ petition be also taken up for hearing along with the present appeal. Accordingly, we have heard submissions of the parties on the appeal as well as on the writ petition.3. The appellant after completing 10+2 examination joined Zaporozhye State Medical University, Ukraine to study medicine. This University falls in the WHO Directory of recognized medical colleges as also it falls ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Vivek Bhatia and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-2009
Reported in: 160(2009)DLT108
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 Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) dated 3rd January, 2006 asking for norms for selection to group 'B' post against the 70% quota, Marks secured, ACR for last 5 years and details of selection. The Central Public Information Officer in his reply dated 14th March, 2006 noted 'you had secured the qualifying marks in the written test, but could not get qualifying marks in Part 'B', i.e. record of service and viva-voce'. Disclosure of ACRs was also denied to the respondent No. 1 on the ground that the same was a part of confidential files and cannot be provided. This order was maintained by the first Appellate Authority under the Act.2. On second appeal, the Central Information Commissioner by order dated 13th December, 2...
Satish Kumar Mann Vs. Mcd and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-2009
Reported in: 165(2009)DLT11
ORDER1. The present petition, styled as a Public Interest Litigation, has been filed alleging that big quantity of drainage/rainwater is collected and stinking in village Naya Bans and the authorities were not doing anything about the same. Police assistance was also sought from the SHO of Police Station Narela for restraining the mischievous persons from blocking the passage. The petitioner, on behalf of the villagers, made an application to the Deputy Commissioner, MCD, Narela zone intimating about the unauthorized blockage of the canal by respondent No. 7. It is also alleged that Respondent No. 6, under the garb of Abadi Deh Certificate, got the total area of his house mentioned as 816 Sq.Yds. in collusion with the revenue staff though the abadi deh certificate is not meant to disclose or certify the length of boundaries and demarcation of impugned house. The petitioner claims that applications were made by him on behalf of the villagers to have the unauthorized encroachment removed...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Sh. Rohtash Singh (Ex-driver)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-2009
Reported in: 161(2009)DLT374
V.K. Shali, J.1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition has challenged the award dated 29.8.2005 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in ID No. 50/2004 in case titled The Management of DTC v. Its Workman Sh. Rohtash Singh. By virtue of the aforesaid award, the learned Tribunal has held that the termination of service of the workman under Clause 14(10)(c) of the Delhi Road Transport Act (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as Regulations) without giving an opportunity of being heard was held to be illegal and unjustified on the part of the petitioner and accordingly, the said termination was set aside and the respondent/workman (since deceased) was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and with all consequential benefits along with 50% of the back wages. The petitioner/Management feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid award and has accordingly challenged the same.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused th...
Hardicon Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-2009
Reported in: [2009]152CompCas13(Delhi)
Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Registrar of Companies appears on an advance notice and has been heard.2. As limited controversy is involved in the present cases, with the consent of the parties, the present writ petitions are heard and are being disposed of with this common order.3. The petitioners herein have challenged the letter/notice dated April 23, 2009, which as per the petitioners is an order under Section 234(7) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short). By the said document, the respondent-Registrar of Companies has called for various information from the petitioners-companies as have been set out therein.4. Section 234(1) and (7) of the Act read as under:234. Power of Registrar to call for information or explanation.--(1) Where, on perusing any document which a company is required to submit to him under this Act, the Registrar is of opinion that any information or explanation is necessary with respect to any matter t...
Global Steel Philippines (Spv - Amc) Vs. State Trading Corporation of ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2009
Reported in: 162(2009)DLT568
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.Caveat No. 31/2009Learned counsel for the respondent/caveator has entered appearance and the caveat is discharged.FAO (OS) No. 186/2009 & CM No. 6769/20091. Learned Counsel for the appellant has filed in Court an affidavit of Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Authorised Representative of the appellant, stating that he would like to withdraw the last sentence of ground 'n' of the appeal at page 32 of the paper book, which had crept in inadvertently and that he tendered unconditional apology for the same. The request made in terms of the affidavit is acceded to and the apology accepted. The last sentence of ground 'n' accordingly stands deleted.2. The appellant entered into an Agreement dated 04.04.2005 with respondent No. 1/State Trading Corporation (STC) for purchase of various goods from time to time giving authority to respondent No. 1 to execute contracts and place purchase orders on behalf of the appellant. In terms of this arrangement, the payment is to be made by responde...
Goyal Mg Gases Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Air Liquide Deutschland Gamh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2009
Reported in: 160(2009)DLT374
ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.IA No. 12674/20071. By this order I shall dispose of this application under Order 7 Rule 11 made by defendant No. 1 for rejection of the plaint.2. Plaintiff has filed this suit based on a non-competition clause contained in Share Purchase Cooperation Agreement (SPCA) entered into between plaintiff and defendant No. 1 on 12th May 1995. Undisputedly, this SPCA has come to an end because of various intervening circumstances as pleaded by plaintiff in the plaint and on February 2006, defendant No. 1 who had purchased the shares of plaintiff under SPCA sold its entire shareholding to plaintiff group of companies. Plaintiff, however, pleaded that despite SPCA having come to an end, the negative covenant as contained in the share purchase agreement and as modified by the Board Resolution dated 28th July 1999, of the plaintiff company remains binding on defendant No. 1 and other defendants having financial unity with defendant No. 1 prohibiting defendants from comp...
Des Raj Gupta Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2009
Reported in: 159(2009)DLT738
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. Lala Hansraj Gupta, ex Mayor of Delhi died on 3rd July, 1985. The present Petition was filed in October, 1985 by his son Sh.Des Raj Gupta alleging therein that Lala Hansraj Gupta had left behind a 'Will' executed by him on or around 28th May, 1985 in sound mind, out of his own free will and desire. The 'Will' was registered by sub-Registrar on 29th May, 1985. The sub-Registrar registered the document at the residence of Lala Hansraj Gupta. It is averred that the Will was drafted by Sh. S.K. Tiwari, Advocate who is also one of the attesting witnesses to the 'Will' and the Probate Petition. Late Lala Hansraj Gupta named 3 executors in the 'Will'. One of the executors named is the petitioner and the other 2 executors named in the 'Will' are Sh.Shiv Raj Gupta and Sh.Rajender Kumar Gupta, the two other sons of the deceased. Petitioner, who is elder son of the deceased, submitted that other 2 executors failed/neglected to act or to take any step towards discharge o...
Sunder @ Lala Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2009
Reported in: 160(2009)DLT701
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. 2. Pertaining to offences under the Indian Penal Code, the various sections thereof enumerate offences contemplated by the legislature. The ingredients of the offences have to be culled out on a reading of the relevant section of the penal code. Since actus reus i.e. the doing of an act is an inseparable part of most offences, the same requires to be established by evidence. The rules of evidence have been prescribed under the Evidence Act 1872. Admissibility and relevance of evidence has to be determined, at a criminal trial, with reference to the provisions of the Evidence Act 1872. The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 governs the procedure to be followed at criminal trials. 3. Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 contains provisions relatable to trial before a Court of Session...
Veekay Leather Industry Vs. Director of Enforcement Directorate and an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2009
Reported in: 2010(249)ELT489(Del)
Mool Chand Garg, J.1. This order shall dispose of the second appeal filed under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 by the appellant aggrieved from the order dated 20th June, 1980 passed by the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Agra, whereby a penalty was imposed upon the petitioner on account of not taking adequate steps to recover the money from a foreign buyer. The Assistant Director imposed a penalty of Rs. 90,000/- which was reduced to Rs. 60,000/- by the first Appellate Authority, that is, the Appellant Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi vide its order dated 4th June, 2007. This is the order which is the subject matter of the present appeal.2. According to the appellant, this appeal raises the following questions of law:(i) What is the scope and ambit of the phrase 'reasonable steps' as appearing under Section 18(3) of the FERA?(ii) Whether the FERA Appellate Board committed an error in law in holding that steps taken by the appellant were not...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »