Delhi Court April 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 17 of about 223 results (0.010 seconds)Dr. Sahadeva Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 5th March, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. 562 of 2010, titled as 'Dr. Sahadeva Singh v. Union of India and Anr., dismissing the original application of the petitioner seeking quashing of charge sheet issued against him by the respondents.2. Brief facts to comprehend the controversies are that a memorandum dated 16th January, 2009 proposing to hold an enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued. Against the charge sheet issued against the petitioner dated 16th January, 2009, a representation dated 23rd November, 2009 was made by the petitioner for withdrawing the charge sheet, however, his representation was rejected.3. The articles of charges framed against the petitioner are as follows:ARTICLE OF CHARGE-11. That Dr.Sahadeva Singh, Deputy Commissioner (Crops), working in Horticulture Division of the Department of Agriculture & C...
Tag this Judgment!The Divisional Railway Manager Vs. Shri Uma Shanker and anr.
Court: Delhi
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The petitioner Railways by this writ petition impugns the ex parte award dated 21st August, 2000 of the Industrial Tribunal holding the termination by the petitioner Railways of the services as a khalasi of the respondent No. 1 workman to be improper, unjust and directing the petitioner Railways to reinstate the respondent No. 1 workman in service with all back wages and other benefits. No interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner Railways. On the last date of hearing i.e. 19th March, 2010, the counsel for the respondent No. 1 workman had stated that the award has since been implemented as far back as in the year 2002 and all back wages and consequential benefits have also been paid to the respondent No. 1 workman and the respondent No. 1 workman has on reinstatement been working with the petitioner Railways. This Court in the said circumstances prima facie felt that the present was not a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Jitender Kumar and ors. Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. This is a petition filed by the petitioners for quashing of criminal case against them under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in the Court of Ms. Veena Rani, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. The FIR in question is sought to be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties reduced into writing in a compromise deed which is Annexure P-2 at page 20 of the paper book.2. This petition was heard on the last date, i.e., 16.04.2010, when respondent No. 2, being the complainant, on whose complaint the FIR in question was registered against the petitioners, was also present. The marriage between the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 had taken place on 23.11.1999. No child was born from their wedlock. On account of matrimonial dispute between them, they started living separate since July 2000. This led to registration of FIR in question under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Delhi Admninistration ...
Court: Delhi
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. These eight writ petitions entail common questions of law & fact and are being listed together. WP(C) No. 2521/1988 is the main petition of the MCD challenging/impugning the award dated 13th May, 1988 of the Industrial Tribunal. The other petitions are off-shoots of the said award.2. The award impugned in WP(C) No. 2521/1988 was made on the following reference:Whether all those 'B' Grade Staff Nurses and Auxiliary Nurses, Midwives, who have completed three years services and are posted against the post of 'A' grade staff nurse should be promoted to 'A' grade staff nurse with retrospective effect, and, if so, what directions are necessary? Whether anomaly in the pay scales of 'B' grade staff nurse and auxiliary Midwives or nurses be removed with retrospective effect i.e. from 01.01.1973 and if so what further directions are necessary?3. It was the claim of the workmen before the Industrial Tribunal that:(i) The petitioner MCD has been running a large number of m...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Farjam Vs. Sarfaraz Ahmed and ors.
Court: Delhi
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The applicant first defendant moves this Court, for rejection of the suit, on the ground that it is barred in law, citing Order XXI Rules 58 and 101 of the CPC.2. The plaintiff claims to be owner of property ('suit property') being 190 square yards, part of Khasra No. 436/297, Batla House, Okhla, Jamia Nagar, which is shown in red in the site plan filed with the suit. The plaintiff claims that the third defendant was his predecessor in interest, with whom he (the plaintiff) entered into a transaction to purchase (the suit property), on 25.09.2003 and 26.09.2003, when a General Power of Attorney and a will were executed and Rs. 3,00,000/- was paid as consideration. It is stated that an agreement (to sell) was also entered, and that further, the predecessor in interest, third defendant put the plaintiff in possession of the suit property. The suit alleges that the suit property was an open piece of land, and formed part of a larger plot of 800 square yards. It is a...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Lalie
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.Crl.M.A. No. 5042/2010Allowed.Crl.M.A. No. 5041/2010Delay of 63 days in seeking leave to appeal is condoned.Crl.L.P.133/20101. The respondent was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 363/366/376 IPC. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 07.08.2009, the appellant has been acquitted of the charges framed against him.2. Kumari 'S' was the girl allegedly kidnapped and subsequently raped by the respondent. She is the daughter of Smt.Poojari PW-2 and Sh.Lorik Prasad PW-4.3. That Kumari 'S' was found missing on 21.10.2005 is a fact proved with reference to the FIR Ex.PW-6/A recorded after PW-4 went to the police station on 24.10.2005 and informed that his daughter aged 16 years was missing and he suspected the respondent, a tenant in his house, as the one who had eloped with his daughter.4. After the prosecutrix was recovered she not only refused her medical examination but even refused to undergo ossification test.5. During cross-examination, the prosecutr...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Wahid Vs. Hameed Mian (Decd.) Thru. Lrs and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13th November, 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs was partly decreed and it was ordered that the Sale Deed dated 6th November, 1987 in favour of the defendants No. 2 and 3 (the appellants herein) in respect of the suit property bearing No. 878, Haveli Azam Khan, Chitli Kabar, Jama Masjid, Delhi be cancelled as illegal, void and ineffective; and the legal heirs of the defendants hand over the vacant and physical possession of the first floor of the said property to the plaintiffs (the respondents herein).2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the suit property was purchased by one Mohd. Mian in the year 1930. He died in the year 1947, leaving behind two sons namely Ahmed Mian and Mahmood Mian. Ahmed Mian and Mahmood Mian inherited the suit property in equal shares and were residing in it along with their families. Mahmood Mian was in ...
Tag this Judgment!Apollo Tyres Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the quashing of the impugned order dated 15.06.2009, wherein the approval under Section 35(2AB) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') is indicated to have been given with effect from 01.04.2007 as against from 01.04.2004 which the petitioner was seeking.2. As aforesaid, the impugned order dated 15.06.2009 has been passed in the context of the provisions of Section 35(2AB) of the said Act. The said Section 35(2AB), as was applicable during the relevant period, reads as under:35. Expenditure on scientific research.-xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx(2AB) - (1) Where a company engaged in the business of [bio-technology or in] 'any business of manufacture or production of any article or thing, not being an article or thing specified in the list of the Eleventh Schedule' incurs any expenditure on scientific research (not being expenditure in the nature of cost of any land or building) on...
Tag this Judgment!Karamjeet @ Titu Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. We note that the appellant has filed the appeal availing services of a legal aid counsel. The appeal has reached for hearing today. Counsel provided by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee to the appellant has not appeared and accordingly we appoint Ms. Sharddha Bhargava Advocate who is present in Court and is on the panel of the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee as the Amicus Curiae to argue the appeal on behalf of the appellant.2. We fix the fee of learned Counsel in sum of Rs. 5,500/-, to be paid by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.3. The post-mortem report Ex.PW-1/A of the deceased Anna Madrasi, proved through the testimony of its author Dr. Amit Kochhar PW-1, shows that the deceased had 5 external injuries, being as under:1. Incised wound, 3 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.3 cm bone deep, over left parietal region, 6 cms in front of left pinna.2. Incised wound, 1 cm x 0.3 cm x 0.2 cm cartilage deep, present on left pinna.3. Incised wound, Y-sh...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Chanchal Sharma
Court: Delhi
Mool Chand Garg, J.1. The short point involved in this matter is, as to whether, the husband of the respondent, Late Shri Kalanath Sharma (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), who had been appointed as Conductor with the Delhi Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') on 18.11.1966 and promoted as Assistant Traffic Inspector, but had resigned from service on 04.06.1990, was not eligible for the pension scheme which was floated by the petitioners w.e.f. 27.11.1992 even though the same was made applicable to all the employees who had retired after 3.8.1981 and were given option to opt for pension scheme or the provident fund within a period of thirty days from the date of the order. The said scheme was compulsory for the new employees.2. The respondent had been prosecuting the claim of the deceased that he be also given the pension benefits inasmuch as he not only applied for pension soon after the scheme was floated by the petitioners but also kept on following the same...
Tag this Judgment!