Delhi Court October 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 3 of about 99 results (0.010 seconds)General Manager Mtnl Vs Jagdish Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER. (Oral)1. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in compliance with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal the pay scale in which respondent No.1 has been directed to be placed has been made applicable to the respondent and further, since the respondent had already retired by the time the Tribunal decided in his favour, necessary pensionary benefits have been granted to the respondent.2. We note that the corrigendum memorandum dated 14.8.1979 which directed that the office memorandum dated 12.10.1976 would read as caretaker in the scale `225-308 instead of Senior Caretaker Grade II was the subject matter of a challenge in W.P.(C) No.129/1980 filed in this Court. The writ petition was allowed on 25.3.1985 in which it was held that the corrigendum memorandum was illegal and that all those whose nomenclat...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Kumar Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may Yes. be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes. in the Digest?ORDER.1. The petition was filed for directing the respondent No.1 University of Delhi to grant admission to the petitioner to LLB course.2. The eligibility prescribed for admission to LLB is Graduate / Post Graduate Degree from University of Delhi or any other Indian or Foreign University recognized as equivalent by the University of Delhi with at least 50% marks or an equivalent grade point in the aggregate in either of them. The petitioner seeks admission on the basis of LLM Degree obtained by him from Amity University. Though Amity University was not impleaded as a respondent when the petition was originally filed but the petitioner applied for its impleadment as a respondent and which was allowed.3. The respondent refused admission to the petitioner for twofold reasons. Firstly, that the LLM Degree o...
Tag this Judgment!Uoi and ors. Vs. Pratap Singh
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER.(Oral)1. Respondent Pratap Singh was appointed under the Railways on 11.12.1979 and his service book was prepared. He claims that his date of birth was correctly entered as 19.12.1946 in harmony with the school leaving certificate issued to him by the Head of the GSAS Inter College, Mursan (Hatras) U.P. He further claims that the appointment letter dated 3.12.1979 clearly indicates the acceptance by the Department of his date of birth being 19.12.1946. Undisputedly due to a fire in the record room of the Divisional Office where his service record was being maintained, the same was destroyed due to fire on 17.2.1980 and thereafter the Department reconstructed the record in which his date of birth was shown to be 7.11.1943. Being shown born nearly 3 years prior to when he claims to be born, Pratap Singh would super...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Akanksha Dokania Vs. Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology and anr ...
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. Both petitions concern admission in the OBC category to engineering colleges in Delhi (of which respondent No.1, is one), made by the respondent No.2 University of Delhi by holding the All India Engineering / Architecture Entrance Examination (AIEEE). Both petitioners sought admission to the engineering courses in the respondent No.1 Institute. The respondent No.1 is an autonomous Institution of the Government of NCT of Delhi. 85% of the total seats in the respondent No.1 Institute have been allocated for the Delhi region and 15% seats for outside Delhi region. The students passing from recognized Schools / Colleges / Institutions located within the National Capital Territory of Delhi are eligible to apply for admission in the Delhi region seats and students passing from Schools / Colleges / Instit...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kumar Bansal Vs Deepak Sawhney
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.By this common judgment, above two petitions filed under Section 25-B (8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short as Act) are being disposed of.2. Vide impugned order dated 30th January, 2010, Additional Rent Controller (for short as Controller) Delhi, dismissed the applications for leave to contest along with affidavit filed by petitioners/tenants and eviction order was passed in favour of respondent/landlord.3. Brief facts are that, shops in question situated on the ground floor of property No. C-45, Nehru Road, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi, were let out to the petitioners by respondent for non-residential purposes, of which respondent is the owner.4. It has been alleged by respondent that earlier suit property was owned by Sh. Purshottam Dass Sawhney and Smt. Bhojwanti Sawhney, grandparents of the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Sh. Rishi Pal and Another.
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? ORDER(Oral)1. The challenge by means of the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the Award dated 6.6.1995 passed by the Industrial Tribunal whereby it was ordered that the workman Rishi Pal is entitled to be regularized from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 15.7.1981.2. The only issue in this case is whether the workman is entitled to regularization from the date of his initial appointment or in due course as per the policy of the petitioner. The workman was appointed as a Mali/Baildar on daily wages basis.3. It has now been held by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions that regularization of an employee cannot de hors the rules of an organization and which violate constitutional principles. These judgments are M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corpn. and...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Kohli Vs the State Nct of Delhi 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. Aggrieved by the sale of the unit at C-392, DSIDC, Narela, Delhi-110040 (hereinafter the unit in question) by the Respondent No. 2 Delhi Finance Corporation (DFC) to Respondent No. 3 M/s. Ganesh Footwear Private Limited (GFPL), the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to set aside the sale and restore the unit in question to him. The Petitioner also seeks a mandamus to initiate measures to rehabiliate the Petitioners unit in accordance with the recommendations of Haryana-Delhi Industrial Consultants Limited (HARDICON) submitted in February 2002.2. The Petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. NBG Industries engaged in the business of manufacturing of adhesive tapes and injection moulded items. The Petitioner was allotted a plot admeasuring 350 sq.m by DSIDC at C-392, Industrial Park, Narela, Del...
Tag this Judgment!Nahata Traders and Builders Pvt.Ltd Vs Director General, ...
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? Yes1. The background facts in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9886 of 2003 filed by Nahata Traders & Builders Pvt. Ltd. (NTBPL) and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9887 of 2003 by Nahata Group of Builders & Financiers Pvt. Ltd. (NGBFPL) are more or less similar. The questions for determination in both writ petitions are also based on a common set of facts. Accordingly, these two writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. Background facts in W.P. (C) No. 9886 of 20032. The relevant facts are that way back in 1982, NTBPL the Petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9886 of 2007 purchased land comprised in khasra No. 564/87 situated in Village Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the property in question) by way of five sale deeds dated 2nd June 1984. It is stated that the property in question was give...
Tag this Judgment!Shumita Didi Sandhu Vs Sanjay Singh Sandhu 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 Yes ORDER1. This appeal raises interesting issues with regard to the concepts of matrimonial home and shared-household and also concerning the right of residence of a wife in the matrimonial home, shared-household or some other place.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and / or order dated 02.07.2007 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in IA Nos.291/2005 and 8444/2005 in CS(OS) 41/2005. The suit had been filed by the appellant against her husband, Mr Sanjay Singh Sandhu (defendant No.1), her father-in-law, Mr Hardev Singh Sandhu (defendant No.2) (since deceased) and her mother-in-law, Mrs Shiela Sandhu (defendant No.3). During the pendency of the suit as also the said applications, the appellants father-in-law (the said defendant No.2) passed away and his legal representatives, being his widow ...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Bhushan Vs Delhi Transport Corporation
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 07-08-2007 and impugned award dated 11-09- 2007 praying to set aside the said order and the award. Also to quash the removal order of the respondent dated 20-10-1994.2. According to the petitioner he was working as a driver under badge no. 10913, under the respondent since 09-02-1982 at the Kalkaji depot in New Delhi. In 1992, the petitioner fell ill and therefore took leave starting 05-08-1992. He sent a leave application accompanied with a medical certificate of his sudden illness through some employee of the depot to the depot manager.3. Petitioner joined his duty on 17-08-1992 and again applied for the leave through submitting a leave application with medical certificate for the reason of his sudden illness. As per the p...
Tag this Judgment!