Delhi Court December 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 19 of about 211 results (0.019 seconds)Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. H.C. Singhal
Court: Delhi
1. The respondent, Shri H.C. Singhal, while functioning as Zonal Engineer (Building) in the City Zone of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi from 16.12.1981 to 23.4.1983 was alleged to have committed gross misconduct and failed to maintain devotion to duty and absolute integrity on account of delay in dealing with unauthorized construction of a commercial complex in Chandni Chowk and failing to comply with instructions from superior authorities resulting in framing of charges against him and a departmental inquiry being WP (C) No.6272 of 2010 Page 1 of 6 held. This departmental inquiry found the respondent guilty and an Office Order dated 16.2.1993 was issued by the disciplinary authority after giving opportunity to the respondent upholding the finding of the inquiry and imposing penalty of dismissal from service about fifteen (15) days prior to the date of retirement of the respondent. The order of the disciplinary authority was affirmed by the appellate authority (Lieutenant Governor)...
Tag this Judgment!Pearl Global Limited. Vs. House of Pearl Fashions Limited.
Court: Delhi
1.This application under Sections 391(1), 393 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act for short) has been filed by Pearl Global Limited (Transferor Company) and House of Pearl Fashions Limited (Transferee Company) in respect of scheme of amalgamation and arrangement enclosed as annexure-A to this application.2. Registered office of the transferor and transferee companies are situated within the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Copy of the Articles and Memorandum of Association of the transferee and transferor companies have been placed on record. Board of Directors of the transferor and transferee companies have passed resolution approving the proposed scheme.3. Meeting of the equity shareholders of the transferor and transferee company will be held on 16th February, 2011 at 10.30 am and 12.30 pm, respectively at Sri Sathya Sai International Centre, Pragati Vihar, near Pragati Vihar Hostel, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110003. The coram of the said meeting will be as per the respective Art...
Tag this Judgment!In the Matter Of: Brigadier Kapil Dev Arya Vs. Union of India and Othe ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The applicant filed O.A 11/2010 before this tribunal praying that the order dated 05/11/2009 (Annexure A-1) rejecting his statutory complaint be quashed and the respondents be directed to allot vacancies for promotion to the rank of Major General from unutilised vacancies released by Phase II of AV Singh Committee Report on pro rata basis and decide his merit in selection board without giving weightage for NDC Course. The applicant has also prayed that Army HQ policy of quantified system of promotion which retrospectively allotted marks for NDC be quashed. 2. The applicant was commissioned in the Army (Signals) on 17/12/1977 with two years ante date seniority from 22/12/1975. During his service he was awarded Army Commanders Commendation Card and was approved for promotion to Brigadier in December 2004. The applicant avers that his batchmates started getting promoted in June 2005 and his chance for promotion came up in December 2005. He was thus placed at a disadvantage because his...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
1. This application for suspension of sentence has been made by the applicant who has filed an appeal against his conviction under Section 376 IPC. The applicant was sentenced to 10 years R.I. for raping a minor girl of around six years of age.2. The counsel for the applicant states that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and the identification of the applicant by the prosecutrix and her mother did not inspired confidence.3. I have gone through the testimony of witnesses. I consider that it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence at this stage. However, the appeal of the appellant be heard expeditiously and be listed for hearing on 7th February, 2011...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Mohan Vs. Jawahar Lal and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. The lis subject matter of this appeal revolves around two Wills, one dated 23-09-1973 (hereinafter referred as first Will) and the other dated 17-11-1986 (hereinafter referred to as the second Will) both allegedly executed by deceased Smt. Roop Rani, who was the mother of Late Sh. Ajudhia Prakash and Jawahar Lal. Both the Wills are registered. Both sides have filed separate probate petitions with respect to their respective Wills and both are opposing grant of probate to each other.2. After framing of issues, evidence was led by both the sides. Evidence of handwriting expert and finger print experts was also recorded. After conclusion of evidence and hearing the parties, the learned ADJ observing that both the Wills were executed by Late Smt. Roop Rani and both were registered held that the Will dated 17.11.1986 being later in time and proved as a valid and genuine Will, granted probate with respect to the second Will in favour of the respondents and dismissed the probate petition f...
Tag this Judgment!Rani Vs. the State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
1. Present Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment dated 1st October, 2003, and order on Sentence dated 13th October, 2003, whereby the Appellant was convicted under Section 304B/498-A IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years with fine of ` 1,000/-.2. Janki was married to son of the Appellant on 5th December, 2000. She committed suicide by hanging herself on 1st March, 2001. After her death, her brother Ved Prakash, PW-2 gave a statement to SDM that he had visited Janki's house on 23rd February, 2001 and found her in a sad mood. She told him that her in- laws were asking for ` 50,000/- and a scooter as they wanted to open a shop and the scooter was required for roaming around. Ved Prakash stated that thereafter he talked to in-laws of her sister and told them that he would respond after thinking over. He asked them to send Janki with him. On this, he was told that they would take her to his house after 2-3 days. After th...
Tag this Judgment!Latha Venkataraman Vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd. ...
Court: Delhi
1. The respondent has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of this petition on the principles of constructive res judicata. Admittedly, WP(C) No.9385/2007, seeking a similar relief, was filed before this Court which was dismissed by an order dated 4th March, 2009 to the following effect: "After some arguments counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the petition with liberty to challenge the final report of the Inquiry Officer if the same turns against the petitioner. Reserving that liberty, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn."2. Counsel for the petitioner seeks to urge that the aforesaid order does not amount to either res judicata or to constructive res judicata and it is open to him to file the instant petition seeking the same relief. Of course, there is no dispute that relief identical to the one sought in WP(C) No.9385/2007 has been sought in this petition also. It is the contention of counsel for the petitioner that since there was no finding...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Madan Lal (Through Lrs.) and ors. Vs. Shri Ram Pratap (Through Lr ...
Court: Delhi
1. The present suit has the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.09.1991 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge who vide judgment and decree dated 01.02.1986 had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.2. Briefly stated the matrix of the case is as follows:- i. Plaintiffs, Suraj Prasad and Madan Lal, had filed a suit for possession of shop no. 1467, Fountain, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. It had been alleged that the plaintiffs i.e. Suraj Parsad Madan Lal are tenants under Madan Lal since 1943 at a monthly rent of Rs.57.50/- which had been increased to Rs.80/-. Rent note dated 11.07.1945 had been executed in the favour of the landlord.ii. Plaintiffs and defendant no.1 are real brothers. RSA No.72/1991 Page 1 of 10 Defendant nos. 2 to 4 are the sons of defendant no.1. iii. Plaintiff no.2 was carrying on business of `paan, `cigarette etc. in Shop No.1469/1, Fountain, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. There was no electricity in that shop. Plaintiff was utilizing electricity from the adjoining shop. ...
Tag this Judgment!Amit Nehra Vs. S Singh and ors
Court: Delhi
This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 13th October, 2010 of MM dismissing the application of the petitioner filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR and order dated 12th November, 2010 passed by the ASJ dismissing the revision filed against the order of MM. This Court had an occasion to deal with a case with similar type of prayer in Crl.M.C.No. 842/2010 Kishan Pal v. Dushyant Kumar Sharma & Ors. on 29th November, 2010 wherein it was observed as under:"The powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with the learned MM are discretionary in nature. It is for the MM to decide whether the case should be sent to police for registration of FIR and investigation or the complaint should be treated as a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Court and pre-summoning evidence should be recorded and thereafter summons should be sent to the accused, if a case if made out against the accused. It is not obligatory upon the learned MM to orde...
Tag this Judgment!Raghubir Singh Vs. State of Haryana and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2002 which had endorsed the finding of the Trial Judge dated 01.10.1993, whereby, the suit of the plaintiff Raghuvir Singh was dismissed.2. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief. He had joined service of the defendant no. 2 i.e. Haryana Roadways Corporation as a conductor w.e.f. 30.09.1967. He served there till 30.04.1971. On 30.04.1971, his services were illegally terminated. He was placed under suspension on a false accusation. Charge-sheet had been issued. Enquiry Officer had been appointed. However, Departmental enquiry was not conducted. The general manager of the Department called the plaintiff and on the belief that no harm will be caused to him, the plaintiff gave in writing RSA No.82/2002 Page 1 of 5 that he was not interested that an enquiry be conducted against him. The plaintiff accordingly gave application dated 10.03.1971 to the said effect. This resulted in the termination o...
Tag this Judgment!