Delhi Court March 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 9 of about 197 results (0.019 seconds)In the Matter Of: Nb Sub Vijay Bahadur Singh Versus the Union of India ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The applicant had submitted writ petition (civil) No. 567 of 2007 in the Delhi High Court for quashing the order dated 30.6.2006 by which he was of discharged and praying for promotion to the rank of Subedar with consequential relief. The same was transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal on 10.11.2009. 2. The applicant was enrolled in the Army on 6.6.1978 and in due course of this service he was promoted to the rank of Havildar on 30.9.1992. After passing the promotion cadre in 1998 he became eligible for promotion to the rank of Naib Subedar. A junior was promoted before him on 1.6.2002. It was stated that he was graded average in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) 2000 2001. This ACR was set aside on 24.1.2003 by higher authority. He was awarded severe reprimand in January 2003. That too was expunged on 25.8.2003 but he was not empanelled for the rank of Naib Subedar. 3. It is contended that respondent with malafide intention did not promote him and he was ordered to report to ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Ravi Chadha and ors. Vs. Bank of Maharashtra
Court: Delhi
Indermeet Kaur, J.1. Suit property is the basement measuring 2298 sq. ft of property bearing No. 5/67, W.E.A., Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Plaintiff, the landlord of the suit property had vide registered lease deed dated 01.12.1983 leased out the suit property to the defendant bank for a period of nine years and ten months. Lease was for a fixed period; monthly rent was Rs. 14,937/-. The lease expired by efflux of time on 30.9.1993.2. After the expiry of lease, several negotiations orally as also in writing were held interse between the parties for renewal of the lease at the market rate of rent. No material decision was taken. On 25.2.1995 plaintiff terminated/determined the tenancy of the defendant and the called upon him to handover the vacant physical possession of the suit property to him on or before 31.3.1995. Defendant did not vacate the property. He, however, continued to pay the admitted rate of rent. Present suit was filed on 12.3.2001 for possession and mesne p...
Tag this Judgment!State Trading Corporation (India) Ltd. Vs. Khushi Ram Behari Lal and a ...
Court: Delhi
Manmohan, J.1. Present petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1996') challenging the Arbitral Award dated 06th June, 2002 read with the order dated 07th September, 2002.2. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that on 01st February, 1995, a contract was executed between the petitioner-objector and Ministry of Food, Government of Bangladesh whereunder petitioner-objector agreed to supply/export 25,000 metric tonnes plus/minus 5% Indian Non-Basmati Par Boiled rice.3. On 21st February, 1995, a domestic contract was executed between petitioner-objector and respondent-claimant for taking delivery, loading, unloading, storing and rebagging of rice. In pursuance to the said contract dated 21st February, 1995, respondent-claimant took various steps and incurred expenditure under various heads.4. However, the main agreement between petitioner-objector and Bangladesh Government got frustrated due to non-...
Tag this Judgment!Bhargava and Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rites Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. By this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner company comprising of architects doing consultancy work challenge the Award of the sole Arbitrator dated 8.12.2009. By the Award, the Arbitrator has dismissed all the claims of the petitioner/consultant on the ground that it was guilty of delay in performance of its obligations under the contract. The Arbitrator however, benevolently, has given a payment of 10% with respect to whatever work was done by the petitioner under the contract. The Arbitrator has upheld the findings of cancellation of the contract after issuing show cause notices by the respondent.2. The scope for hearing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is now well settled. This Court does not sit as an appellate court in the sense that when two views are possible, this Court does not interfere with the view as taken by the Arbitrator, if the view of the Arbitrator is ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Jagbir Singh
Court: Delhi
Anil Kumar, J.1. By order dated 20th January, 2009 seven petitions were disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the memorandum of charges against the employees were quashed including in O.A. No. 1254/2008 titled Shri Jagbir Singh v. The General Manager, Northern Railway which order is impugned by the petitioner, Union of India and Ors. before us in this writ petition.2. Another original application being O.A. No. 1253/2008 titled Sh. Ram Kishan v. Union of India was also decided by the said common order dated 20th January, 2009 quashing the charges against the said petitioner which was challenged by the Union of India by filing a writ petition being W.P(C) No. 13894/2009 titled Union of India and Ors. v. Sh. Ram Kishan and Ors.3. The writ petition filed against the common order dated 20th January, 2009 was dismissed by the High Court by order dated 23rd December, 2009 holding that there was no error in the order dated 20th January, 2009 passed by the Tribunal in the batc...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Singh Negi and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Mool Chand Garg, J.CM No. 12236/2009 (delay)For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in re-filing the petition is condoned.Application stands disposed of.WP(C) No. 12029/20091. The short point involved in this matter is as to whether the petitioners were justified in filing a second OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') for the reliefs which were declined to them in an earlier petition filed by them before the Tribunal which was registered as OA No. 1057/1999 and was decided as per the order dated 22.11.2000.2. The petitioners had filed the aforesaid OA aggrieved of the action of the respondents in denying them promotion to the post of Draughtsman Grade II though they alleged that they fulfilled all the conditions of eligibility and have also passed the departmental examination for Draughtsman Grade II held on 12.1.1988.3. The Tribunal vide judgment dated 22.11.2000 while accepting the case of the petitioners for such promotion passed the ...
Tag this Judgment!Pal Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bank of Maharashtra
Court: Delhi
Indermeet Kaur, J.1. Suit property is 50% portion of ground floor of property bearing No. 5/67, W.E.A., Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi measuring 1105 sq. feet. Plaintiff, the landlord of the suit property had vide registered lease deed dated 01.12.1983 leased out the suit property to the defendant bank for a period of nine years and ten months. Lease was for a fixed period; monthly rent was Rs. 19,899/-; after the expiry of five years the defendant started paying the increased rental of Rs. 22,883.85 i.e. 15% increase in the rent in terms of the lease deed. The lease expired by efflux of time on 30.9.1993.2. During the pendency of this lease on 1.1.2001 vide two registered sale deeds the plaintiff had become the owner of the suit property.3. After the expiry of lease, several negotiations orally as also in writing were held interse between the parties for renewal of the lease at the market rate of rent. No material decision was taken. On 25.2.1995 plaintiff terminated/determin...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Anand Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Process of criminal law was set into motion when at around 08.30 A.M. on 19.05.2002 the duty officer at PS Hari Nagar noted vide daily diary entry Ex.PW-2/B, that one Sharwan Kumar PW-2, came to the police station and stated that on 12.12.199 1 the marriage of his daughter Reetu (herein after referred to as the 'Deceased') was solemnized with the appellant Sanjay Anand S/o Sh. Anand Kishor Anand R/o D-75 DTC Colony Hari Nagar as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Yesterday i.e. 18.05.1992 accompanied by her husband the deceased had come to his house. The deceased was fit and fine at that time and that she returned to her matrimonial house at about 06.00 P.M. Today at about 05.30 A.M. they received a telephone call informing that the deceased has suddenly fallen sick and that her ECG is being conducted at DDU Hospital. When they reached DDU Hospital they could not find anyone there upon which they went to the matrimonial house of the deceased where he found that the...
Tag this Judgment!inderjeet Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The challenge laid by the petitioner in these proceedings is to the acquisition of the land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the said Act' for short) vide a notification under Sections 4, 17(1) and 17(4) of the said Act in respect of the land measuring 8 bighas and 2 biswas in Khasra No. 520, Village: Kilokari, Tehsil: Mehrauli, Delhi. The purpose for which this land was sought to be acquired was for construction of Delhi Noida Bridge Project.2. There have been subsequent developments which have material bearing on the present controversy. On 06.12.1999, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and M/s Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd ('NTBCL' for short) in terms whereof as against 8 bighas and 2 biswas of land acquired out of khasra No. 520, NTBCL confined its requirement to only 122 square yards. This was despite the fact that in the meantime as per a possession report, the LAC had already taken over possession of eight bighas and two biswas of...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Samla Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
J.R. Midha, J.1. The appellants have challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs. 4,38,000/- has been awarded to the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 5.2. The accident dated 14th June, 1993 resulted in the death of Raja Ram. The deceased was survived by his widow, three sons and father who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal.3. The deceased was aged 28 years at the time of the accident and was selling milk. The learned Tribunal took the income of the deceased as 3,000/-, deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased and applied the multiplier of 17 to compute the loss of dependency at Rs. 4,08,000/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 30,000/-towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses and mental pain and agony. The learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 4,38,000/- to the claimants.4. The only ground urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant at the time of hearing of this appeal is that the appellant rece...
Tag this Judgment!