Delhi Court April 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ex Nk Prem Shankar Shastry Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2010
1. The present petition has been transferred from Honble Delhi High Court to this Tribunal on its formation. 2. None appear for the petitioner. 3. Petitioner by this petition has prayed to declare the action of respondents of rejecting his claim of disability pension in terms of his invalidation from service in Indian Army with effect from 31.01.2006 vide respondent no.5 letter dated 18.05.2006 and action of respondents in the matter of disposal of his appeal dated 17.08.2006, as being violative to Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of present petition are that petitioner joined the Indian Army as soldier in the Regiment of Artillery on 28.10.1990 and he has been posted to various places from time to time. On 01.03.2004 when he was standing in PT formation, he felt giddiness and fall down. He was evacuated to the medical room therefrom and he was evacuated to 173 MH and after that, to 173 MH at Faridkot and later o...
Surjit Singh and anr. Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
S.L. Bhayana, J.1. The present appeal arises out of judgment/order of learned ASJ dated 25.7.2009 and 04.8.2009 wherein the learned ASJ has convicted the accused persons under Section 395/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for five years each and also a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default SI for one month each for the offence under Section 395/34 IPC.2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant Sunil Aggarwal made a statement before the police on 26.8.2003 that he is running companies under the name and style of Meridian Fin West Pvt. Ltd. and Hilltop Cabfin Pvt. Ltd. at East Patel Nagar. He recovers the loan amount given to the public by the banks and he collects that amount from the public from morning till 3.00 PM. After making recoveries of these amounts from the public, he deposits the same in the bank. He further stated before the police that whatever amount is recovered by him from the public is taken by him to his house and he deposits the same in th...
National Highways Authority of India Vs. Andhra Expressway Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
A.K. Pathak, J.1. Appellant assails the judgement dated 29th January, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short hereinafter referred to as A & C Act) against the award dated 14th September, 2009 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, have been dismissed.2. The brief background of the case, leading to the passing of the impugned order, is that the Respondent was incorporated by a consortium of M/s. Gammon India Ltd. & Punj Llyod Ltd., the two joint venture partners. Respondent entered into a Concession Agreement (hereinafter referred to as 'Agreement') with the Appellant on 30th October, 2001 for the work of strengthening the existing two lane carriageway between Dharamvaram and Tuni from 253 Kilometers to 300 Kilometers, on N.H. 5 in the state of Andhra Pradesh and for widening thereof to four lanes dual carriageway. The concession period was to start from 30th May, 2002 and end on 29th November, 2019....
Delhi Transport Corporation and anr. Vs. Sh. Bhim Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioner, Delhi Transport Corporation & another, have impugned the order dated 3rd December, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in T.A. No. 592 of 2009, titled as 'Sh. Bhim Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors.', by setting aside the orders dated 9th September, 1998 and 15th December, 1998, removing the petitioner from service by a non-speaking order and rejecting the appeal also by a stereotype order dated 15th December, 1998 and ordering that the respondent shall be entitled to consequential benefits and allowing the Original Application of the respondent.2. The respondent was served a memorandum dated 15th February, 1991 alleging that he had been involved in a moral turpitude offence allegedly committed by him in the night of 5th-6th August, 1990 at 1:45 AM in Humayun Pur Village pursuant to which an FIR dated 6th August, 1990 was registered which fact was allegedly concealed by the respondent and in his appl...
Canara Bank Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The petitioner bank in this petition impugns the award dated 19th April, 2004 of the Industrial Tribunal on the following reference:Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank in considering the workman Sri Ram Pal Sharma sub-staff as voluntarily retired from services of the Bank w.e.f. 3rd December, 1988 on account of his alleged absence from duty is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to2. The respondent No. 3 workman was employed as a Class-IV employee with the erstwhile Lakshmi Commercial Bank which had merged with the petitioner Canara Bank. The respondent No. 3 workman was at the relevant time posted at Bulandshahr; he applied for medical leave which was sanctioned for a [period of four months]. It is the case of the petitioner bank that the respondent No. 3 workman remained absent unauthorizedly from 14th November, 1985 to 14th March, 1988 inspite of letters dated 20th August, 1986, 8th October, 1986 and 13th Janua...
Mmtc Limited Vs. Legend Holdings Pte. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
Manmohan, J.1. This is a Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the petitioner, MMTC Limited ('MMTC') against M/s. Legend Holdings Pte. Ltd. ('Legend'). The petitioner challenges the Award dated 29th July, 2002 wherein a sum of USD 294,505.26 has been awarded at the then prevailing exchange rate along with an interest of 18% per annum.2. This Award relates to the deduction of an amount equivalent to the Discharge Port Demurrage paid by petitioner.3. All the other Claims of the respondent were rejected along with all counter claims of the petitioner.4. I may point out that the respondent had also challenged the same Award to the extent of the other claims of the respondent which were rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal in the Bombay High Court. The Section 34 petition was dismissed on 24th February, 2003 and the appeal preferred against it was also dismissed. It appears that the matter was not taken up any further by the respondent and that part o...
Chand Miyan @ Sonu Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 14.9.2007 the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302/324/34 IPC.2. The offence of murder relates to the injuries caused upon the person of Tasleem, who was declared 'brought dead' at the hospital. The conviction for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC is for the injury caused to Mohd.Chand PW-6.3. Section 34 IPC was invoked for the reason Dalip had acted in concert with the appellant, as alleges the prosecution. We note that Dalip could not be apprehended and was declared a proclaimed offender.4. DD No. 14-B, Ex.PW-4/A, was recorded at PS Welcome Delhi at 10:25 AM on 16.2.2004 that a wireless message has been received from the police control room conveying information that the police control room was informed that a man had been stabbed in Seelampur at a spot ahead of T-point near a nalla.5. As deposed to by HC Pramod Kumar PW-8, he was on PCR duty in the van 'Baker-57' from 8:00...
Vijendra @ Behra Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
S. L. Bhayana, J.1. By this judgment, I will dispose of this appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court dated 12.9.2005 wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant and sentenced the appellant under Section 20 NDPS Act to undergo ten years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac and in default of payment of fine, the convict would further undergo RI for two years.2. It is the case of the prosecution that secret information was received at the police station on 09.4.2004 by SI Ramesh Dutt from one informer that one boy namely Vijender aged about 24-25 years who is indulging in sale of Ganja would come from Jahangir Puri via Railway Track No. 7 towards Shalimar Bagh and he was carrying large quantity of Ganja with him. On receiving this secret information, a raiding party was organized and accordingly the appellant was apprehended by the police on 09.4.2004 at 7.30 PM. The appellant was found carrying 20 kgs of Ganja in a...
M/S Ambika Trading Co. and Another Vs. C.C.E., Lucknow
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
Per M. Veeraiyan: 1.1 Appeal No.E/1304/07 by M/s Ambika Trading Co. with Shri Alok Agarwal as proprietor is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 125-CE/APPL/KNP/2005 dated 28.2.2005 by which a penalty of Rs.1 lakh imposed by the original authority was upheld. 1.2 Appeal No.E/1305/07 is by M/s Ganpati Multi Fab (P) Ltd. with Shri Alok Agarwal as Managing Director against the very same order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by which a penalty of Rs.1 lakh imposed by the original authority was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). 1.3 These two appeals arise out of a common order in original and a common order in appeal and therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that a case was made out against M/s Galaxy Indo Fab Ltd. , a manufacturer of processed fabrics, pillows, cushions, printed fabrics alleging suppression of production and clandestine removal. The present appellants were held to have received non-d...
Cce, Jaipur Vs. M/S V.D. Swami and Company Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy : Heard the ld. DR. 2. The respondents are not present despite notice. There is also no adjournment request. As such, the ground of appeal advanced by the department remains uncontroverted. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower appellate authority for fresh decision after taking into account the grounds of appeal advanced by the department and after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondents. 3. The appeal is allowed by way of remand....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »