Delhi Court May 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 4 of about 157 results (0.019 seconds)Aruna Kashinath Vs. Gmail.Com and Another
Court: Cyber Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
RAJESH TANDON, J. CHAIRPERSON Heard Mr.Pavan Duggal,Advocate assisted by Mrs.Renu Narula,Advocate for the appellant and Mr.Sajan Poovaya, Advocate assisted by Mr.Parveen Sherawat,Advocate and Mr.Akhil Anand, Advocate for the respondents. Present appeal has been filed praying following directions to respondents to (a) disable access to all content including disabling the said email account [email protected]. (b) Further deliver by return email, the identity details of the sender (s) of the aforesaid defamatory and insinuating emails from the email account [email protected] including the contact number (cell number and email identity), address, telephone number, fax number and other identification details, if any. (c) Provide the complete details pertaining to the technicalities, headers and footers information and comprehensive identification parameters as also the complete computer logs of the entire electronic records and emails generated, sent, received and handled by...
Tag this Judgment!Mascon Global Limited Vs. Gmail.Com and Another
Court: Cyber Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
RAJESH TANDON, J. CHAIRPERSON Heard Mr.Pavan Duggal,Advocate assisted by Mrs.Renu Narula,Advocate for the appellant and Mr.Sajan Poovaya, Advocate assisted by Mr.Parveen Sherawat, Advocate and Mr.Akhil Anand, Advocate for the respondents. Present appeal has been filed praying following directions to respondents to (a) Immediately remove any content, which is defamatory, derogatory, abusive and humiliative of the applicants company and Managing Director Sandy K.Chandra and further to disable access to all such content including disabling the said email accounts [email protected] and [email protected].. (b) Further deliver by return email, the identity details of the sender (s) of the aforesaid defamatory and insinuating emails from the email account [email protected] and [email protected] including the contact number (cell number and email identity), address, telephone number, fax number and other identification details, if any. (c) Provide the complete det...
Tag this Judgment!In the Matter Of: Ex Sowar Lokesh Kumar Versus the Union of India and ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The applicant filed a writ petition (civil) No. 8068 of 2007 in the Honble Delhi High Court. The applicant has challenged his order of discharge from service. The same was transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal on 04.9.2009. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant appeared in a recruitment rally at Mathura on 20/4/03. During his medical test on 21/4/03 he was suspected to have retracted TM and DNS and was referred to Military Hospital (MH) Agra. The ENT specialist, Lt Col Rahul Arora, declared him fit for Mild DNS and Retracted TM. After the recruitment authorities were satisfied that the applicant met all the requirements he was asked to proceed to Armoured Corps Centre at Ahmednagar, Maharashtra on 02/09/2003. It is further stated that the applicant completed his recruit training without any medical problem. After the attestation on 21/8/04 the applicant was posted to 3 Cavalry at Pathankot on 04/01/05. 3. Subsequent to a Staff Court of Inquiry (C of I) convened ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Asha JaIn and anr. Vs. Sh. Anil Kumar JaIn A+
Court: Delhi
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The plaintiffs have, in the present suit, claimed a partition decree and other consequential reliefs, including injunction and damages.2. Briefly the facts are that the plaintiffs claim to be co-owners of the suit property, being No. 181, Gagan Vihar, Delhi-110 092, (which measures 200 sq. yards, and has a building constructed upon it), comprising of ground floor. The plaintiffs trace their title to a Registered Deed dated 06.07.2000. The suit mentions that the original owner of the property was one Sh. Manphool Singh, who parted with interest in the property, (including possession), to the plaintiffs and the defendant, by virtue of an Agreement to Sell dated 11.08.1995, and received Rs. 5,50,000/- from them. It is stated that besides the plaintiffs and defendant, there was a fourth co-owner, Sh. Vijay Kumar Jain, who sold his proportionate one-fourth share in the suit property to the plaintiffs and defendant. The said Sh. Vijay Kumar Jain was the first plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Amit Singhal and ors. Vs. the Chairman, Dsssb and anr.
Court: Delhi
Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioners, who are working as a contractual staff nurses in Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Shahdara and Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences, Shahdara, have challenged the order dated 3rd May, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA 1101/2010 titled Sh. Amit Singhal and Ors. v. Chairman Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Anr. dismissing their petition seeking direction to the respondents not to hold common examinations on 10th April, 2010 and 11th April, 2010 against all the five posts and to postpone the examinations and direction to the respondent to hold separate examination for the separate post code and to provide opportunity to the petitioners to appear in two examinations as some of them had applied for two posts.2. Brief facts to comprehend the controversies are that the advertisements were given in 2008 for appointment of staff nurses in Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Sciences and in the Institute o...
Tag this Judgment!Balbir Verma and ors. Vs. Council of Architecture and ors.
Court: Delhi
ORDERS. Muralidhar, J.1. The three Petitioners are Architects. The present writ petition was filed by them challenging the decision dated 30th November 2005 taken at the 46th meeting of the Respondent No. 1 Council of Architecture ('Council') that the petitioners were guilty of professional misconduct under Regulation 2(1)(x) of the Architects (Professional Conduct) Regulations 1989. The petitioners challenge the communication dated 24th January 2006 addressed by the Respondent No. 1 to the complainant, Respondent No. 6 herein informing him of the above decision dated 30th November 2005 of the council and a notice dated 24th April 2006 issued to each of them asking them to appear before the Council at its next meeting on 27th May 2006. The further prayer was to prohibit the Council from proceeding with any hearing or enquiry against the petitioners under Section 30(2) of the Architects Act, 1972.2. The order dated 26th May 2006 passed by this Court set outs succinctly the issues raised...
Tag this Judgment!Anupam Garg Vs. the District Judge Office of District Sessions Judge
Court: Delhi
Manmohan Singh, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction against the respondent to recall/modify the result of candidates selected for interview for LDC Recruitment Test, 2009.2. The petitioner is currently pursuing his graduate studies in B.A. Political Science (Honours) from Satyawati College, University of Delhi, and has appeared for the final examination of Second Year. The petitioner has obtained 72% in his Senior Secondary Examination and has currently secured an aggregate of 57% in his graduate studies.3. The respondent had by way of public notification advertised for filling up the vacancies of Lower Division Clerk in the pay-scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- pre-revised as per the terms and directions detailed in the notification.4. The petitioner has given the detail of notification allegedly advertised for filling up vacancies. The learned Counsel for the respondent has placed a photocopy of the relevant ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Krishan and ors. Vs. D.T.C. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The nine writ petitioners, by this writ petition impugn the award dated 10th August, 1998 of the Labour Court holding the termination of services of the petitioners by the respondent No. 1 DTC to be legal and valid and finding the petitioners to be not entitled to any relief. Notice to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted was issued. The respondent No. 1 DTC has filed a counter affidavit to the petition. Rule was issued on 5th July, 2000. The parties were sent to the Lok Adalat of this Court but no settlement could be arrived at. The writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 25th August, 2009. C.M. No. 12731/2009 was filed for restoration. On 7th May, 2010 it was clarified that the said application shall be considered when the counsels are ready to address on the merits of the case. The counsels for the parties have been heard. Accordingly, C.M. No. 12731/2009 for restoration of the writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution on 25th Augus...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Jha Vs. Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation
Court: Delhi
Veena Birbal, J.1. Rule.With the consent of parties, matter is taken up for final disposal.2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined Mica Trading Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'MITCO') on 13.11.1985. The said company was originally incorporated on 18.06.1973 as a 100% subsidiary of the respondent and the same now forms the Mica Division of the respondent. On 01.04.1985, the respondent came up with a 'MMTC (Staff) Promotion Policy, 1984'. Clause 6.1 of the said promotion policy provides that there will be no transfer in the staff cadre from one region to another except if the same is due to vigilance proceedings and/or desired by some outside agency like CBI. On 08.04.1996, MITCO merged with the respondent under the Rehabilitation Scheme and the staff officials of MITCO became the employees of the respondent.It is alleged that the petitioner and other similarly placed employees made a representation to the respondent for giving them a benefit of pay revisio...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Singh Sharma and ors. Vs. Anand Kumar Sharma
Court: Delhi
Hima Kohli, J.1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners (defendants No. 1 to 5 in the court below), assailing an order dated 10.12.2009 passed by the trial court, dismissing the application of the petitioners for extension of time to file the written statement.2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction was preferred by the respondent (plaintiff in the court below) against the petitioners (defendants No. 1 to 5 in the court below) on 24.01.2009. Summons were issued in the suit on 24.01.2009. As per the petitioners, they were served with the summons in the suit, on 28/29.03.2009. However, a perusal of the order sheets shows that the defendants No. 1, 3, 5 and 6 (petitioners No. 1, 3 and 5 herein) were duly served much earlier and had appeared in Court on 10.02.2009. On 01.04.2009, counsel for all the defendants/petitioners herein entered appearance and filed his Vakalatanama on their behalf. On the same date, an application wa...
Tag this Judgment!