Delhi Court November 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 5 of about 90 results (0.020 seconds)Esic .. Vs. Vijay Grover.
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? Yes1. Taking into consideration the total number of employees with the establishment of the respondent, the appellant corporation has filed this appeal under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act. It has been pleaded that the employees employed by the respondents in its manufacturing unit and in the sales office pertains to the same management and as such the applicability of the ESI Act, the employees employed on various places i.e. at the respondent factory and sales office are to be clubbed together though they are at different place. It is stated that the order of the ESI court holding that the two units i.e. factory premises and sales office are to be treated separately and independently, as such the appellant was not justified in clubbing the employees of the respondent working in both units to...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Madhrukar GuptA. Vs. Registrar of Co - Operative Societies and an ...
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? 1. The challenge by means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/member of the respondent no.2 Cooperative Society is to the impugned order dated 19.9.2007 of the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal (DCT). By the impugned order dated 19.9.2007, the DCT accepted the appeal filed by the respondent no.2 herein challenging the original Award passed by the Arbitrator dated 12.3.2004. The petitioner herein was the claimant in the arbitration proceedings and the petitioner claimed a category-I flat from the respondent no.2 society on payment of the demands of the society.2. Though the disputes between the parties have a chequered history, the most important aspect, which would be crucial to the disposal of the present petition is that the disputes as to expulsion of the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Karan Promoters (P) Ltd.. and anr. Vs. Ericssion Communications Pvt. L ...
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment No2. To be referred to Reporters or not No3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in the Digest ?1. This is a suit filed for recovery of a sum of Rs 1,13,95,591/- along with pendente lite future interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the decretal amount from the date of institution of the suit till its realization. The recovery of monies sought by the plaintiff is towards brokerage/ commission. In the background of the above, the plaintiff set up the following case.2. Plaintiff no. 1 is a company engaged in the business of liaison and property consultancy. Plaintiff no. 2 is a director in plaintiff no. 1 company. It is averred that plaintiff no. 1, who was earlier carrying on the business, had transferred its business to plaintiff no. 2 company. It is further averred that the defendant was interested in acquiring on lease a property in south Delhi admeasuring approximately 70,000 sq. ft. It is the case ...
Tag this Judgment!Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Chandresh Kumar
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral): 1. The short facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a truck on 4th June, 2004 for Rs. 9,55,000, taking a loan of Rs. 8,10,000 from the OP bank under the terms and conditions given in Loan Agreement, a copy of which is available on the record. The loan was to be repaid within 35 monthly instalments of Rs. 31,000 each, commencing from 10.7.2004, and the OP obtained from the complainant 35 blank signed cheques in advance. The complainant invested Rs. 60,000 for installation of accessories in the truck, and some money for its body building. The complainants case is that after payment of seven instalments in all Rs. 2,17,000, he was not in a position for the time being to pay the instalment due in January, 2005, and he had requested the bank not to present his cheque for encashment but the OP bank presented it, and the cheque was dishonoured. The bank on 7.2.2005, therefore treating it the complainants default, and without informing him, rep...
Tag this Judgment!Asha Rani. Vs. Sandeep and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be Yes allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Yes the Digest?ORDER1. The appellant as well as the respondents propounded two different Wills alleged to have been executed by Late Sh. Ram Chander who was the father of respondents and father-in-law of the appellant.2. An important issue which needs reference is that the appellant was married to Sh. Jai Bhagwan, son of the deceased Ram Chander on 27.06.1985. Thereafter, Sh. Ram Chander expired on 10.10.1985. The appellant propounded the Will dated 30.08.1985 while the respondents propounded Will dated 22.12.1982 which is a registered Will.3. The appellant filed Probate Petition No. 144/2006 and the respondents filed a separate probate petition No.143/2006.4. After service was complete and citations were issued in respect of both the cases, following issues were framed by the learned ADJ: "1. Whether the deceased Sh. Ram...
Tag this Judgment!R.P.Nautiyal and ors. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi 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? ORDER1. Order under challenge in W.P.(C) No.3586/2008, W.P.(C) No.4132/2008, W.P.(C) No.4143/2008 and W.P.(C) No.4144/2008 is dated 2.1.2008 allowing OA No.1152/2007, OA No.1167/2007 and OA No.1227/2007. In three writ petitions the challenge is by the Government of NCT Delhi and in the fourth the challenge is by private individuals who are aggrieved by the decision, but we note who were not impleaded as respondents before the Tribunal. Order under challenge in W.P.(C) No.10255/2009 is dated 17.11.2008 allowing OA No.569/2006 which has simply followed the earlier order dated 2.1.2008 allowing OA No.1152/2007, OA No.1167/2007 and OA No.1227/2007.2. Holding that it is settled law that vacancies to be filled by promotion has to be filled in the panel year, the Tribunal has held that vacancies which had accrued to the post...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Harsh Vardhan Chauhan.
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? ORDER1. In the financial year 2004-2005, two companies namely Rajesh Exports Limited (hereinafter referred to as "REL") and Adani Exports Limited (hereinafter referred to as "AEL") obtained Advance Licenses from the office of The Directorate General of Foreign Trade (hereinafter referred to as "DGFT") under the provisions of Chapter 4 of Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009 and pargraph 4.56.1(b) of Handbook of Procedures authorizing them to effect duty free import of gold bars having 99.5% purity, with an obligation to manufacture and export gold jewellery studded with synthetic, semi-precious and imitation stones having 7% value addition. On the basis of advance licenses granted to them, REL and AEL imported duty free gold, manufactured the final product and exported the same; as claimed by them and in respect whereof the...
Tag this Judgment!Gurdev Kumar. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Petitioner Gurdev Kumar is aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 24.8.2004 dismissing OA No.1969/2002 filed by him in which he had prayed that directions be issued to the respondents to upgrade the post held by him of Demonstrator-cum-Technician to that of a Lecturer.2. Gurdev Kumar had preferred OA No.1050/1997 claiming same relief which was disposed of by the Tribunal on 6.2.2001 with a direction to the respondents to examine the claim of Gurdev Kumar and pass a reasoned order. Complying with the direction issued by the Tribunal a reasoned order dated 15.1.2002 was passed rejecting the claim.3. Briefly noted, claim of Gurdev Kumar was based on the recommendations of a committee constituted under the chairmanship of Professor J.P.Madan, recommendations whereof were accepted; the recommendations being to upgrade the lowest post of teaching in Engineering Institutions to that of a Lecturer. The Committee had recommended that any post in the teaching cadre, lower than that of a Le...
Tag this Judgment!Gautam Sapra Vs. State Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr
Court: Delhi
1. This petition has been preferred assailing order dated 30th October, 2010 whereby an application of the petitioner assailing jurisdiction of the Court of MM under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act ('Domestic Violence Act' for short) was dismissed.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the respondent before the court of MM made an application under Domestic Violence Act invoking jurisdiction on the basis of her temporary residence in Delhi. She hired a room in hotel/ lodge in Pahar Ganj and filed the petition. Subsequently, she moved into a tenanted premise within Delhi. It was argued that in view of the judgment of this Court in Sarat Kumar Pandey v. Mamta Pandey (2010) IV AD (Cre) DHC 565, the court of MM would have no jurisdiction to entertain the application since the applicant had hired a room in the hotel only for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction of Delhi Court. The Crl. M.C. 3700 of 2010 Page 1 Of 2 petitioner was living in ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs.Sarvesh Kumari Yadav Vs. Sh. H.C. Ahuja
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 revision petition has been filed by the petitioner (Defendant in the trial court) against judgment dated 24 th July, 2009 passed by Civil Judge, vide which suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short as Act) for possession filed by respondent (Plaintiff in the trial court) was decreed.2. Brief facts of this case are that respondent purchased property bearing no. 500, DDA Janta Flat, Ground Floor, Pul Prahaladpur, New Delhi from its owner Sh. Jagdish Chander Mehandiratta for sale consideration of Rs.75,000/- on 13th August, 1996. The possession of the said property was handed over to the respondent by its owner on receipt of the whole of the sale consideration. The said owner executed the possession letter showing the delivery of possession of the said property to the res...
Tag this Judgment!