Delhi Court March 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 3 of about 197 results (0.023 seconds)Shri Sushil Ahuja and Ors. Vs. State Bank of India Officers' Associati ...
Court: Delhi
Rajiv Shakdher, J.IA No. 150/2010 (under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC by plaintiffs) & IA No. 290/2010 (under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC by defendant Nos. 1 & 2)1. By this common order I shall dispose of the interlocutory applications (in short 'IAs') filed both by the plaintiffs as well as the defendants. IA No. 150/2010 has been filed by the plaintiffs under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'CPC'), while IA No. 290/2010 has been filed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2.2. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have moved this application to seek vacation of ad interim ex-parte order passed by me on 08.01.2010 on the above referred IA being: IA No. 150/2010 moved by the plaintiffs. In the operative part of the order dated 08.01.2010 I had directed as follows:.In the circumstances, the defendant No. 3 while being permitted to continue with the election process shall refrain from declaring the results till the next date of hearing....3. The circumstances in which...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Mastura Sultan and ors. Vs. Dy. Custodian Gen. of Evacuee Propert ...
Court: Delhi
Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The petitioners, Mst. Mastura Sultan (who expired after filing of the present petition) and her children have filed the present writ petition for quashing the order dated 26th May, 1982 passed by the Custodian General of evacuee property dismissing their revision petition under Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Evacuee Act, 1950, for short) and upholding the order dated 14th February, 1980 passed by the Assistant Custodian (Judicial), inter alia, holding that the property in their occupation bearing No. 4487/92A/52, Basti Hazrat Nizamuddin, Delhi is an evacuee property. The petitioners have also prayed for declaration that the property in their occupation is not an evacuee property and other incidental relief's.2. In the year 1947, partition of India saw migration of a large number of persons. These migrants left behind moveable and immovable assets, when they migrated to settle down either in India or the...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Bainiwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
S.N. Aggarwal, J.C.M. No. 4279/2010 in W.P.(C.) No. 2144/20101. Exemption as prayed for is granted subject to all just exceptions.W.P.(C.) No. 2144/2010 & C.M. No. 4280/2010 (for stay)2. The petitioner had joined service with the respondent No. 2 as Deputy Marketing Manager (Grade-I) on 08.09.1995. In the course of time, he was promoted from the post of Deputy Marketing Manager (Grade-I) to Marketing Manager w.e.f. 16.10.1998; then, to the post of Chief Marketing Manager w.e.f. 22.03.2003 and then, to the post of General Manager, presently held by him w.e.f. 31.03.2008. The petitioner was transferred to Hyderabad by respondent No. 2 vide transfer order dated 04.12.2009 and was relieved from Delhi office vide relieving order dated 07.12.2009. Despite his relieving from Delhi office, he did not go and join at the place of his transfer in Hyderabad. He chose to challenge the transfer order in writ petition being W.P.(C.) No. 14134/2009. In that writ petition, he prayed for stay of his tra...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Manager, Upsrtc Vs. Suraj Thr. Guardian
Court: Delhi
J.R. Midha, J.1. The respondent has been produced before this Court by Gurvinder Singh, ASI, P.S. Welcome Colony.2. The respondent is aged 14 years and is accompanied by his father. The respondent was aged about 7 years at the time of accident on 15th August, 2003. He was a student of 3rd standard at the time of accident. The respondent was crossing the road when he was hit by bus No. UP-14-G-9607, resulting in fracture of bone above knee and injuries on his abdomen and tongue. The left leg was put under plaster and stitches were given on the stomach and tongue. 17 stitches were given on the stomach. The respondent remained admitted in the hospital for 25 days and his treatment continued for 6-7 months.3. The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 2,000 towards conveyance, Rs. 2,000/-towards special diet, Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of education and Rs. 30,000/-towards metal pain and agony. The total compensation awarded is Rs. 43,000/-.4. The injuries of th...
Tag this Judgment!Thanesar Singh Sodhi Son of Shri Jagat Singh Sodhi Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Delhi
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The detention order under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA') was passed detaining the petitioner herein on 2nd January, 1978. This detention order had been the subject of litigation, as would be noted at the relevant stage. Subsequently, a notice under Section 6(1) of Smugglers And Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture Of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'SAFEMA') was issued to the petitioner on 10.02.1981 calling upon him to indicate the source of his earnings and assets out of which or by means of which he had acquired certain properties therein. After receiving the reply, the orders dated 16.09.1983 were passed by the respondents forfeiting the properties of the petitioner. Appeal against this order preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal on 02.03.1995. Challenging the aforesaid orders of the Competent Authority and Appellat...
Tag this Judgment!Ankur Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2010CompLR43,[2010]100SCL1(Delhi)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to challenge the impugned order dated 13.11.2000 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission ('the Commission' for short) which raises the issue of interpretation of Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 ('the said Act' for short).2. It is the case of the petitioner that an application under Section 12B of the said Act for compensation is maintainable as a separate legal remedy irrespective of the other legal proceedings initiated by the petitioner while on the other hand Respondent No. 2, Bank of Baroda, claims that such an application is not maintainable in view of the earlier legal proceedings instituted by the petitioner.3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner-Company was incorporated and registered as a private limited company under the Companies Act, 1956 in the year 1975 and is a recognized export hou...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Devi Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Ajit Bharihoke, J.1. Shiv Kumar s/o Makhan Lal, Raj Kumar @ Kishore Kumar and Ms. Jai Devi w/o Navneet were challaned in Sessions case No. 570/93 FIR No. 120/93 Police Station Vivek Vihar. They were charged under Section 498A IPC and Section 302 IPC both read with Section 34 IPC for subjecting Ms. Archana w/o Shiv Kumar to cruelty and committing her murder on 18th April 93 at 11:00 am at their House No. 7/308A, Jwala Nagar, Pandav Road, Biswas Nagar, Delhi. On conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned judgment dated 23rd May 1997 acquitted the accused Shiv Kumar and Raj Kumar @ Kishore on both counts. Appellant Jai Devi, however, was convicted on the charge under Section 302 IPC, and acquitted for the charge under Section 498A IPC. Feeling aggrieved of her conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 302 IPC, Ms. Jai Devi has preferred this appeal.2. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is that on 18th April, 93 at around 11.20 am, Duty Officer...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the award dated 30.11.2007 whereby the reference was answered against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent committee.2. Brief facts as set out by the petitioner relevant for deciding the present petition are that the petitioner was working as a Chowkidar with respondent No. 3 Committee from January 1990 and his services were terminated on 3.7.1999 without following the due process of law. Consequently, an industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner where vide order dated 30.10.2006, the labour Court held the reference bad in law as not having made by the appropriate government Under Section 2(a) of the I.D Act and therefore the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing No. W.P.(C) No. 18357/06. Entertaining the writ petition, this Court set aside the impugned award and remanded the matter back to the labour court for an...
Tag this Judgment!Nagrik Sangarsh Samiti and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. On 14th September, 2004 at about 7 p.m. fire engulfed property No. A-27, Gali No. 7, Brij Puri, Delhi. Thirteen persons died in the said incident and six persons sustained injuries. Nagrik Sangharsh Samiti, an association of the victims of the fire tragedy, has filed the present writ petition for payment of compensation and damages to the dependants and legal heirs of the victims who had lost their lives in the said fire and for compensation/damages to six persons who had sustained injuries. They have prayed for proper investigation to ensure that the culprits responsible for the said fire are punished and to direct the respondent authorities to ensure that no illicit business of petrol/diesel or highly inflammable chemicals is carried out contrary to the law.2. Union of India, Government of NCT of Delhi, Commissioner of Police and Municipal Corporation of Delhi, through Commissioner are respondent Nos. 1 to 4 respectively. Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 are Kaushlya Devi, ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Indu Khorana Vs. Gram Sabha and ors.
Court: Delhi
Veena Birbal, J.1. A Single Judge of this Court, while hearing the present petition, has made a reference to the Larger Bench for considering certain questions of law as stated in order dated 25.08.2004. This petition is therefore referred to this Bench for answering the reference.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under:Petitioner is the owner/bhoomidar of land situated in village Kaikorola bearing khasra No. 106/12 min. measuring 1 bigha and 9 biswas. Petitioner constructed a small shed on a piece of land measuring 100 sq. yards for the storage of gas cylinders for which permission was granted by the Delhi Fire Department and also for the storage of implements required for carrying out agricultural activities. A major portion of the land, i.e. 1 bigha and 8 biswas is being used for agricultural purposes only. Petitioner has alleged that the village Kaikorola including the land in question along with the entire abadi land and the Revenue Estate of village has been urbanized by t...
Tag this Judgment!