Delhi Court October 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 4 of about 99 results (0.020 seconds)Uoi Vs S.S.Bansal
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.1. Vide impugned order dated 15.12.2008, allowing OA No.1326/2007, noting that the benchmark for promotion was 3 Very Good and the remainder Good in the preceding 5 years ACRs and that the gradings awarded were below benchmark, noting the decision of the Supreme Court reported as Dev Dutt vs. Union of India, 208 (7) SCALE 403, directions have been issued by the Tribunal that below benchmark ACR gradings be conveyed to the respondent who would be at liberty to represent against the same and the Competent Authority would decide the representation and if the ACR gradings are enhanced, Review Screening Committee would be convened.2. Relevant facts are that the respondent joined service as an Assistant Engineer in the year 1968 and earned promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in the year 1980. His claim for seco...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Vs Smt. Chandra Kanta Yadav
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? :NO2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? :NO3. Whether the judgment should be reported :NO in Digest?ORDER1.This is an application for grant of interim injunction restraining the defendant from alienating, encumbering or creating any third party interest in property No.508/2 measuring 200 sq. yds. out of khasra No.999/526/2 in the abadi of Ashok Nagar, Delhi-93 during pendency of the suit.2. It is an admitted case that the defendant had agreed to sell property No.508/2 measuring 200 sq. yds. comprised in khasra No.999/526/2 in the abadi of Ashok Nagar, Delhi-93 to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.46,50,000/- vide agreement to sell dated 03.04.2008 and had received a part payment of Rs.5 lakhs from him on the same date. The balance amount was to be paid to the defendant on or before 30.06.2008. It is also an admitted case that the plaintiff made a further payment of Rs.5 lakhs to the defendant...
Tag this Judgment!infini Agrotech Pvt Ltd Vs Mastana Foods Pvt Ltd.
Court: Delhi
ORDER (ORAL)1. These two petitions have been filed by Infini Agrotech Private Limited (transferor company for short) and Mastana Foods Private Limited (transferee company for short) for approval of the first motion for amalgamation of the transferor company in the transferee company.2. The scheme of amalgamation has been enclosed with the two petitions. The petitioners have filed resolutions passed by the Board of Directors of the transferor and transferee company approving the scheme of amalgamation.3. It is stated that the transferor and transferee company are in the same business of production and trading of agricultural produce. The Board of Directors of the two companies are the same. It is stated that the amalgamation will have beneficial results and would enable economies in administration and management and better and more efficient utilization of resources and facilities. Other reasons have been also mentioned in the petitions. The petitions are supported by the affidavits aff...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. N. Balakrishnan Vs. Nehru Memorial Museum and Library Socity and o ...
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 Yes in the Digest?ORDER.1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of Indian constitution challenges the interim suspension order passed against the petitioner dated 30th April 2009 whereby the petitioner has been suspended from his post pending the disciplinary enquiry and consequently the charge sheet was also issued on 22.6.2009 which has also been made a subject of challenge in the writ petition. The brief facts of the case can be enunciated as under:a) The petitioner is stated to be the responsible employee of the respondent society namely "The Nehru Memorial Museum and Library Society" ( herein after referred as NMML or respondent society). The said society operated under the ministry of culture which has been arrayed through union of India as respondent no. 3. The respondent no. 2 is the chairman of executive coun...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Adarsh Electricals and ors. Vs. Sh.Dinesh Dayal
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.Present petition under Section 25-B (8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short as Act) has been filed on behalf of petitioners for quashing of order dated 23rd March, 2010 passed by Additional Rent Controller, Delhi (for short as Controller) vide which petitioners application seeking leave to contest the eviction petition was dismissed and eviction order has been passed u/s 14 (1) (e) of the Act, in favour of the respondent and against the petitioners.2. Brief facts as per eviction petition are that respondent (petitioner in the trial court) is the owner/landlord of property known as "Kundan Mansion" bearing no. 1769 to 1772 and 1783 to 1785 Bhagirath Palace, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.3. Petitioner no.1 (respondent no.1 in the trial court) a partnership firm, is a tenant in the portion consisting of one...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shanti Devi and ors. Vs Mohd. Furman
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 revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for short as Code) has been filed on behalf of petitioners challenging order dated 28th April, 2010 passed by Commercial Civil Judge, Delhi. Vide impugned order, application under Order 22 rule 4 read with Section 151 and Order 22 rule 9 of the Code, of respondent was allowed.2. Respondent had filed a suit for possession and injunction against Om Parkash (since deceased). Petitioners who are the legal heirs of deceased-Om Parkash, have already been brought on record as application under Order 22 rule 4 of the Code filed by respondent was allowed.3. On 14th July, 2010, when present petition came up for hearing, it was noted by this Court that petitioners have not stated in the entire petition as to what proceedings have tak...
Tag this Judgment!Central Bank Retirees Associarion and ors.Vs Union of India and ors.
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? Yes.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes.1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 6th June, 2008 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellants being W.P.(C) 17825-28/2005. It is pertinent to mention that the appellants who were pre 1st January, 1986 retirees from various public sector banks, had challenged in the aforesaid writ petition, the cut off date of 1st January, 1986 for applicability/eligibility to the benefits under the Pension Regulations introduced by the respondents. The impugned applicability clause as contained in the Pension Scheme of one of the respondents, namely respondent no. 7, is reproduced here in below :-"(c) employees who were in service as on the 1st January, 1986 (excluding those on leave preparatory to retirement) and had retired befo...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and anr Vs Sanjay Kumar and ...
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.1. On 23.07.2003, at the request of the Delhi Fire Services, Government of NCT of Delhi, the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates for being appointed as Fire Operator. In the advertisement the applicable educational and other qualifications were notified to the candidates as also the procedure of selection. Pertaining to educational and other qualifications it was prescribed the minimum educational qualification would be a matric pass or equivalent. It was notified that the candidates should possess a valid licence for driving heavy duty vehicles. Pertaining to the mode of selection it was notified that the selection shall be made by the Board following any one or more of the following methods: (i) Written Test; (ii) Skill Test/D...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd Arif Vs. Employees State Insurance Corp.
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 ORDER1. The issues involved in this appeal filed by the appellant under Section 82(2) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against judgment and order dated 11.08.2005 passed by the ESI Court dismissing the petition bearing No.39/1999 under Section 75 of the Act are:i. Whether the establishment of the appellant, which is admittedly only a guesthouse/lodging house without any kitchen, is coverable under the ESI Act even if it has only 11 employees?ii. Whether the use of refrigerator with the aid of power in the establishment of the appellant amounts to manufacturing process rendering the establishment coverable under the Act?iii. Whether the learned ESI Court was right in ignoring the judgment of the Madras High Court cited as 1956 Mad 600 which clearly says that th...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Anita Khosla Vs State 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 is a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of probate in respect of the Will of late Smt. Lalita Kapoor. It has been alleged in the petition that late Smt. Lalita Kapoor, who expired on 15th July, 2004, had left behind a Will dated 02nd April, 2003, that being her last Will and Testament, which was duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar . The petitioner is the daughter of the deceased, respondent No.2 Narinder Kapoor is the son of the deceased and respondent No.3 and respondent No.4 are the widow and daughter respectively of late Shri Rakesh Kapoor, another son of the deceased Testator.2. On publication of citation in the newspapers and issue of notice to the respondents, objections were filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It was alleged in the objections that Smt...
Tag this Judgment!