Delhi Court October 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 2 of about 99 results (0.020 seconds)Rohitas Goel and anr. Vs. Somaya Nayak and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in Digest?1. This is a suit for permanent injunction and damages. Plaintiff No.1 Rohtas Goel is the Chairman and Managing Director of plaintiff No.2 M/s Omaxe Construction Ltd., which is a company engaged in real estate developments and construction of buildings, roads, bridges, malls, shops, etc. It has been alleged that the plaintiffs adopted "Omaxe" as a part of their corporate name and their services in the year 1989 and have been conducting their business activities, using that trade name. The plaintiffs have developed a number of projects, consisting of apartments and villas, including Omaxe Plaza Wedding Mall, Omaxe Green Valley, Omaxe NRI City, Omaxe Arcade, Omaxe Heights and Omaxe City. Omaxe has thus become a well-recognized name in the field of real estate, is a coveted property of the plaintiffs and is entitle...
Tag this Judgment!Gautam Kant Nimaan Vs. Gnct of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. The services of the petitioner, who was appointed as a Judicial Officer in the Delhi Judicial Service, have been terminated vide orders dated 18th August, 2010 invoking the provisions of Rule 22 of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970, which reads as under:"The services of a person on probation are liable to be terminated without assigning any reason." This order is challenged by filing the present writ petition, primarily on two counts: (i) The petitioner was no more a probationer and therefore invocation of the aforesaid Rule was impermissible.(ii) The order of termination though is couched as termination simplicitor, in fact it is punitive in nature and therefore without serving the charge sheet and holding a Departmental inquiry, the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated.2. In ord...
Tag this Judgment!The Vaish Coop. Adarsha Bank Ltd. Vs. Sudhir Kumar JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER: 1. This appeal filed under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is directed against the order dated 11.03.2005 passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, in RCA No.578/2002, whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 02.07.2002 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, whereby an eviction order has been passed in an Eviction Petition No. 221/1988 filed under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act on the ground of the alleged subletting etc. of the premises in question.2. The relevant facts leading to the filing of this case are that suit premises situated on plot No. 3, Block A, Netaji Subhash Marg, Darya Ganj, Delhi bearing Municipal No. 5055, Ward No. XI (hereinafter referred to as premises) were purchase...
Tag this Judgment!Mahinder Singh. Vs. State.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes. 1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 320 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed that this Court should compound the offence under Section 452 IPC committed by the petitioner in order to secure the ends of justice and to maintain peace and harmony amongst the disputed parties, since the petitioner had entered into compromise in respect of other offences in respect of the same incident.2. A perusal of documents filed by the petitioner would show that the petitioner was an accused in FIR No. 319/2000 PS Mandawali and he was charged by the learned MM under Section 147, 323, 325, 356, 379 & 452 IPC read with Section 149 of IPC. The petitioner entered into a compromise with the victims and an application for compounding of offences was made. As far Crl.MC No. 3268/2010 Page 1 of 3 as offences u...
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Joginder Singh Vs. Surjit Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes : ORDER(oral)The application is allowed and the memo of parties is amended accordingly. Amended memo of parties field at page No.78 of the paper book is taken on record.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant who claims to be the legal heir of Late Sh. Gurbax Singh, owner of Shop No.60, Gaffar Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, who claims to have let out an almirah shop fixed on the wall of shop No.60 Gaffar Market, Karol Bagh to one Gopal Kishan Wahi in September, 1966, and after the vacation of the same, on 01.09.1972 to let out the same to Sh. Mehar Singh at a monthly rent of `80/-. Relying upon the counter foils placed on record and rent deed alleged to have executed by Sh. Mehar Singh it was pleaded that Sh. Mehar Singh in his life time sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of t...
Tag this Judgment!Ashapura Minechem Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes 1. The challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is, inter alia, to a Notification dated 12th October 2006 issued by the State of Maharashtra through the Department of Industries, Energy & Labour, Mumbai under Section 11(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) inviting applications for grant of mining lease (ML) covering land admeasuring 91.58 hectares situated at Khasra Nos. 4 to 7 and 31 to 34 Mauze Gudeghar, Taluka Mandangad, District Ratnagiri, Maharashtra. Challenge is also laid to an order dated 9th July 2008 passed by the State of Maharashtra through the Minister, Industries and Mining, recommending the grant of ML for bauxite ore over the said area to Infrastructure Logistics Private Ltd., Goa (ILPL) (Respondent No.3 herein) and to the o...
Tag this Judgment!Pallavi Doshi Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes2. To be referred to the reporter or not? yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported yes in the Digest?ORDER.1. The petitioner was born of parents of Indian origin in USA and is a citizen of USA. However, upon her father taking up employment in India, the petitioner shifted to India and has since class III studied in schools in India. The petitioner took the class XII examination held by the ICSE Board, an Indian Board and applied for admission in Delhi University. 2. The Information Bulletin published by the University of Delhi for admissions in the academic year 2010, in Clause 4.4 thereof provides as under :"4.4 Reservation of Seats for Foreign Students At least 5% seats in the first year of each course in Colleges are reserved for foreign students. However, this reservation will not be open to those foreign students who have passed the qualifying examination for purposes of admission to the University fr...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Jeevan Kumar Mehan Vs. Mrs. Praveen Verma and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? YESORDER 1. This is an application for amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff wants to amend the plaint so as to incorporate Paras 18.1 and 18.3 and also wants to amend paras 19. 20, 22, 23 and 25 of the plaint while deleting para No. 21. The plaintiff also wants to amend the prayer clause so as to claim certain additional reliefs.2. The application has been opposed by defendants No. 1 and 2. The application, however, is not opposed by defendants No. 3 to 7.3. It has been alleged in the original plaint that the plaintiff is the co-owner of property No. C-85, NDSE-II, New Delhi having 1/4th share in it, which he purchased vide sale deed registered on 18th August 1986. The defendants 1 to 3 are the sisters of the plaintiff, whereas defendants No. 4 to 7 are the wife and children of his deceased brother. It has been ...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar @ Raju Vs. State
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER.This is an application by the applicant under Section- 389(1) of Crl. Procedure Code for suspending his sentence during the pendency of the appeal and to release him on bail. The applicant has contended that he is in custody since 16th November, 2004 and he has every chance of succeeding in appeal. The applicant is stated to be a permanent resident of Delhi and has roots in the society and there is no chance of his fleeing from justice. The learned counsel for the applicant has very emphatically contended that the applicant has been convicted merely on the basis of the testimony of his six years old son. According to him, the testimony of his son regarding the applicant strangulating his wife, mother of the witness is not reliable as he had also admitted in the cross-examination that the applicant had not strangu...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. R. M. Udyog Vs Secretary (Labour) and Others.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ORER(Oral)1. The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India challenges the ex-parte Award dated 26.2.1996 passed by the Labour Court whereby it was directed that the workman will be reinstated with full back wages.2. The only ground pressed by the counsel for the petitioner is that the Labour Court gravely erred in proceeding exparte against the petitioner because in fact there was no service on the petitioner before the Labour Court. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the complete order sheets till the stage the petitioner allegedly appeared through one of its employees. A reading of the order sheets before the Labour Court dated 17.2.1993, 9.7.1993, 4.10.1993, 4.1,1994, 22.3.1994, 29.6.1994, 5.9.1994 and 7.11.1994 shows that the case was fixed for service of the ma...
Tag this Judgment!