Delhi Court November 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 9 of about 90 results (0.020 seconds)In the Matter Of: Ex Sailor Roopesh Kumar Vs. Union of India and Other ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The applicant has filed O.A 179/2009 in this Tribunal praying that he be examined by Doctors at R and R Hospital, Delhi Cantt to ascertain his medical status with regard to colour blindness. The applicant has also prayed that invaliding medical board held by the Navy on 19/06/2007 (Annexure A-1) and order dated 30/10/2009 (Annexure -2) rejecting his representation dated 04/09/2009 be quashed. 2. The applicant states that he qualified for recruitment in the Indian Navy including medical exam held on 09/11/2005. In the medical exam his eye sight was graded colour perception II. No colour blindness was detected. Between the period 02/02/2006 to 23/07/2006 the applicant was posted to INS, Chika for basic training. He states that during his medical exam no colour blindness was detected. Subsequently the applicant was posted to INS, Venduruthy, Kochi on 01/11/2006 where the coloured flags were used for training. The applicant avers that no colour blindness was ever detected. 3. The appl...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and anr. Vs. A.K.Mehrotra 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 Digest1. The facts leading to the filing of the above captioned petition are that the respondent No.1 and 2 were appointed as Coaching/Goods Clerk in the pay-scale `260-430 on 17.06.1975 and 12.04.1976 respectively.2. As per the Recruitment Rules applicable in the year 1982, the post of Commercial Apprentice in the pay-scale `455-700 was to be filled up in the following manner:- (i) 75% through promotion by selection (written test and viva-voce) and by passing pre-requisite promotional course (CP-7/CP-8); (ii) 15% through direct recruitment from open market and (iii) 10% through departmental competitive examination from amongst serving staff of Commercial Department other than ministerial staff who are graduate and below 40 years of age and qualifies promotional course (P28-A & B) from ZTS/CH.3. In the year 1983 the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Uoi Vs. Nand Kishore 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.1. Since common question of law arises for consideration in the two captioned writ petitions, arguments were heard in both the matters on 18.10.2010 and decision was reserved. The present judgment decides both the writ petitions. Pertaining to W.P.(C) No.1932/2005 the relevant facts are that in the third report on commercial and allied matters published in the year 1991 Railway Convention Committee made recommendations for the employment of children and dependants of railway employees as Mobile Booking Clerks. The relevant portion of the said report reads as under:-"The committee appreciate the idea of requisitioning the services of volunteers from amongst students sons/daughters and dependants of railway employees as Mobile Booking Clerks of work outside their college hours on payment of some honorarium during p...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar and anr Vs. State and ors
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.ORDER1. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the Addl. District Judge whereby the Addl. District Judge has allowed a petition filed by the respondent under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act seeking probate of the Will dated 22.08.1994 by the respondent and has granted letters of administration in respect thereof in respect of the respondent. The Will in question has been executed by one late Smt. Neerta (hereinafter referred to as the deceased).2. According to the respondent the deceased wife of late Shri Kanchi Lal had a permanent residence at House No.52, Sawan park Extension, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi. She died on 01.06.1998 in Delhi. She left behind her last and final Will dated 22.08.1994 executed in presence of Smt. Om Wati and Shri D.P. Singh, Advocate whereby the respondent was made the...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Ram Murthy Pyara Lal and ors. Vs. Central Bank of India and Other ...
Court: Delhi
1. The petitioners by means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugn the order dated 18.9.2009 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). By the impugned order, DRAT dismissed the appeal of the present petitioners filed against the order dated 4.3.2008 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). By the impugned orders the DRT and the DRAT have rejected the prayer of the petitioners-borrowers seeking redemption of the mortgaged property on the ground that the auction purchase stood concluded and the stage for exercising the option of redemption had come to an end.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners as the borrowers availed of financial limits from the respondent No.1 herein Central Bank of India. On account of default of the petitioners in payment of the dues, the respondent No.1 bank exercised its rights under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI ...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Prashad Vs. Premwati and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.: ORDERExemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions. FAO 163/20101. This order shall dispose of an appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 15.12.2009 whereby while allowing his application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, the Additional District Judge has dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC. The appellant who filed a suit in the Court of Additional District Judge as plaintiff claims that he was a tenant in shop bearing No.246, Katra Peran, Tilak Bazar, Delhi-6 (hereinafter called as the suit shop) measuring 5x6ft. under one Shri Phool Chand who has since expired. Respondent No.1 is the wife of late Shri Phool Chand and the respondents No. 2 to 6 are his sons. The appellant has sought possession of the suit property from the respondents who fo...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Kumagai Skanska Hcc Itochu Group Vs. the Commissioner, Value Added ...
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of the local papers 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?ORDER1.Regard being had to the commonality of controversy, these writ petitions were heard analogously and are disposed of by a singular order. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts in WP(C) No. 3001/2010 are exposited herein.2. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, has called in question the legality and validity of the initiation of the revisional proceedings against the petitioner by issuance of notice dated 08.04.2010 under Section 74A read with Section 106 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (for brevity the DVAT Act) by the Commissioner, Trade Taxes, Delhi, the first respondent herein, purporting to revise the orders of the Additional Commissioner dated 14.01.2008 and 25.01.2008 ...
Tag this Judgment!Ess Ess College of Education Vs. National Council for Teacher Educatio ...
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 entails interpretation of Regulation 7(1) & (1-A) of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations, 2009 and which are as under:"7. Processing of Applications.(1) The applicant institutions shall ensure online submission of applications complete in all respects along with hard copy of the application and other documents specified below. However, in case of any inadvertent omissions or deficiencies in the documents submitted, the office of the Regional Committee shall point out the deficiencies W.P.(C) No.6227/2010 Page 1 of 12 within 45 days of the receipt of the applications, which the applicants shall remove within 60 days from the date of receipt of communication of deficiencies, if any. The online application with separate submission of t...
Tag this Judgment!Uoi and anr. Vs. A.K.Mehrotra
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. The facts leading to the filing of the above captioned petition are that the respondent No.1 and 2 were appointed as Coaching/Goods Clerk in the pay-scale `260-430 on 17.06.1975 and 12.04.1976 respectively.2. As per the Recruitment Rules applicable in the year 1982, the post of Commercial Apprentice in the pay-scale `455-700 was to be filled up in the following manner:- (i) 75% through promotion by selection (written test and viva-voce) and by passing pre-requisite promotional course (CP-7/CP-8); (ii) 15% through direct recruitment from open market and (iii)10% through departmental competitive examination from amongst serving staff of Commercial Department other than ministerial staff who are graduate and below 40 years of age and qualifies promotional course (P28-A & B) from ZTS/CH.3. In the year 1983 the res...
Tag this Judgment!Mehool H Bhuva and anr Vs. Vandana H Bhuva and anr.
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?: ORDERExemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions. FAO 56/20101. This order shall dispose of the appeal filed by the appellant under Order 43 Rule 1(C) for setting aside the order dated 10.09.2009 passed by the learned ADJ, Delhi whereby the application filed by the appellant under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the CPC was dismissed. It may be observed here that this appeal had been filed by the appellant earlier before the learned ADJ against a judgment and order dated 03.08.2002 which was decided against the appellant on 01.12.2004 dismissing the same on account of non-appearance of the appellant in that case. According to the appellant, even though he had engaged a counsel to file and contest the appeal but the appellant was not informed by his counsel regarding dismissal of the present appeal. It w...
Tag this Judgment!