Delhi Court December 2010 Judgments
Krishan Kumar Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2010
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing/setting aside the summoning order dated 6th September, 2010 passed by the learned Special Judge on a complaint of the respondent about theft of electricity. The petitioner has sought quashing of complaint and the summoning order on the ground that the petitioner was falsely involved by the respondent in a case of theft of electricity. The inspection report of the respondent and the consequential allegations that theft was committed by the petitioner have also been assailed on the ground that the inspection report was false and it was not in respect of the premises of the petitioner. The petitioner has relied upon certain photographs filed with the complaint showing that the alleged cable through which electricity was considered stolen was not coming into his house.It is obvious that the petitioner has raised disputed questions of facts in this petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Aiims Vs. Dr.N.N.Sarkar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2010
1. Writ petition No.2493/2000 filed in this Court by Dr.N.N.Sarkar, the first respondent in WP(C) No.145/2010 and the third respondent in the connected writ petition, challenging selection and appointment of Dr.Anand Kumar, the writ petitioner of WP(C) No.187/2010 and impleaded as respondent No.2 in WP(C) No.145/2010, on being transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal and registered as TA No.677/2009, has been allowed by the Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 14.10.2009; questioned by All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and Dr.Anand Kumar in the two captioned petitions. The dispute pertains to the eligibility of Dr.Anand Kumar to be appointed under All India Institute of Medical Sciences as Professor (Reproductive Biology).2. Reason why the Tribunal has held in favour of Dr.N.N.Sarkar and against Dr.Anand Kumar are to be found in para 5 of the impugned order which reads as under:- "5. We have heard the learned counsel representing the respondents and with their...
Tag this Judgment!The Controller General of Defence Accounts Vs. K.S.Balyan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2010
1. Reason why OA filed by the respondent has been allowed is to be found in para 5 and 6 of the impugned order dated 3.6.2004, which reads as under:-"5. On careful consideration of the rival contentions we find that the ACP Scheme in Clause-6 prescribes qualifying the trade test meant for promotion including any departmental examination in order to entitle a government servant to be accorded financial upgradation. Clause-16 of the clarification ibid does not lay down any condition as to the first or the second attempt for qualification of the examination before grant of Scheme. DOP&T; clarification of qualifying the trade test in first attempt for allowing the benefit of ACP 9.8.1999 and in case of passing the test subsequently from that date is in conflict with the provisions of the Scheme.6. Moreover, SAS examination Part-I was not an examination subsequent to promulgation of ACP Scheme on 9.8.1999. The benefit of ACP was denied to the applicant from 9.8.1999 on the ground that in fi...
Tag this Judgment!Doosan Babcock Engineering and Services India Private Limited Vs. Doos ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2010
1. This second motion petition under Sections 391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act, for short) has been filed by Doosan Babcock Engineering and Services India Private Limited and Doosan Babcock Energy India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferor company Nos. 1 and 2 respectively) and Doosan Projects India private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferee company) in respect of scheme of amalgamation, which has been enclosed as Annexure-A to this petition.2. The registered office of the transferor company Nos. 1 and 2 and the transferee company are located in Delhi. The transferor company Nos. 1 and 2 and the transferee company had earlier filed Company Application (Main) No. 175/2010, which was disposed of vide order dated 28th September, 2010. By this order the Court was pleased to dispense with the meeting of the shareholders and unsecured creditors of the transferor company Nos. 1 and 2 and the transferee company. The transferor company Nos. 1 and 2 a...
Tag this Judgment!Satyender Tewari Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2010
By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has prayed this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents no. 1 & 2 to register a case against respondents no. 3 to 8 and has also prayed for setting aside order dated 21 st June, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Shri J.P.Aryan in Criminal Revision No. 39/2009.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for getting an FIR registered against respondents No. 3 to 8. The learned MM vide his order dated 27 th November, 2009 declined to send the complaint of petitioner for registration of FIR and instead asked the petitioner to lead evidence before him. Against this order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition which was dismissed by the learned ASJ vide order dated 21st June, 2010 and the learned ASJ observed t...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Jha and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2010
1. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 4.10.2010, OA No.2694/2010 filed by respondent No.1 has been allowed with a direction that respondent No.1 be allocated Indian Revenue Service (Customs & Central Excise) as a General Category Physically Disabled (Hearing Impaired) candidate.2. Relevant facts to be noted are that for the Central Civil Services Examination 2009, public notice inviting applications from eligible candidates was issued recording that applications be submitted between 6.12.2008 and 5.1.2009. It was intimated in the advertisement that the number of vacancies expected to be filled up are approximately 580. It was further intimated that recruitment pursuant to the examination would be made to 23 services. Services identified suitable for Physically Disabled Category persons and as reserved were thereafter mentioned. Pertaining to Indian Revenue Service (Custom & Central Excise) Group A it was indicated that 1 post in the category of Locomotor Disability was identified. ...
Tag this Judgment!Startek Plantations and Resorts Ltd. and ors. Vs. Securities Exchange ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2010
1. By this petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 read with Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought quashing of orders of imposition of fine on the petitioners as ordered by the learned trial court vide order dated 4th February 2010.2. The petitioners were convicted by the learned trial court under Sections 24 and 27 of SEBI Act for violation of Regulation (5) (1) read with Regulation 68 (1), 68(2), 73 and 74 of SEBI CIS Regulations, 1999. Petitioner no.2 Mr. V.K. Sharma, Director of the petitioner no.1 company was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and the petitioner no.1 company and Mr. V.K. Sharma both were sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5 lac each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The judgment in this case was delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge as the provisions of SEBI Act were amended in 2002 and the jurisdiction to try such cases was of Sessions Court.3. It is submitted by the counsel for th...
Tag this Judgment!Emaar Mgf Construction Pvt Ltd Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2010
1. The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to seek an interim order of injunction against the respondent no.1, DDA to stay the effect and operation of the notice dated 16.10.2010 issued by it; to restrain the respondent no.1 from giving effect to the demand as raised in the said notice; to restrain the respondent no.1 from taking any steps pursuant to the notice dated 16.10.2010, and; to restrain the respondent No.1/DDA from invoking the three bank guarantees aggregating to ` 183.00 crores , as furnished by respondent No.2 State Bank of Patiala (who have furnished their guarantee for ` 33 crores being BG No. 5079408BG0000654) and respondent no.3, i.e. State Bank of India (who have furnished their Guarantee for ` 150 crores being BG No. 0480308BG0010173), to any extent whatsoever.2. Corresponding injunction is sought against respondent nos.2 and 3 banks from encashing the aforesaid bank guarantees furnished by them ...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Amit Tripathi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2010
This is an application by the appellant/applicant seeking condonation of delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal on the ground that the impugned judgment was pronounced on 30th April, 2010 and considerable time was taken in procuring the certified copy of the judgment. Thereafter, the concerned learned additional public prosecutor received the file along with the letter of approval dated 21st July 2010 from the Assistant Legal Advisor, Govt. of NCT. The applicant has given the details as to who had considered the file to decide whether a petition for leave to appeal is to be filed or not. The applicant has relied on Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Mst. Katiji and Ors., (1987) 2 SCC 107 and State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao, 2005 (3) SCC 752 holding that sufficient cause should be considered with pragmatism in justice oriented approach rather than a technical defection of sufficient causes for explaining every days delay having regard to considerable delay of proc...
Tag this Judgment!Govt.of Nct of Delhi and ors. Vs. Dr.Deepak Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2010
1. Undisputably, we say so for the reason, learned senior counsel for the respondent conceded during arguments that the respondent Dr.Deepak Kumar was appointed on contract basis as a Medical Officer by the Government of NCT Delhi and was assigned to perform work at the Tihar Jail Complex. Initial contractual engagement was with effect from 16.1.2004 and the duration for which services had to be rendered was 6 months. Needless to state, a fixed monthly payment was made to Dr.Deepak Kumar as consideration for contractual service rendered by him.2. It may be highlighted that no permanent, temporary or ad-hoc post was available and further it needs to be noted that the engagement was purely on contractual basis.3. From time to time the tenure of the contract was extended by 6 months each and the contract for employment was valid up to 30.9.2006 but was terminated vide a communication dated 3.7.2006 which reads as under:- "No./70/34/2005/H&FW;/2053-55 Dated:3.7.2006ORDERThe Lt.Governor, of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »