Delhi Court May 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 6 of about 157 results (0.021 seconds)Mohd. Yunus @ Raja Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. As recorded vide endorsement Ex.PW-16/A, it was dispatched from S.P. Mukherjee Marg Bus Stand, Opp. Kauria Pul at 7:05 AM on 4.3.2005. The endorsement Ex.PW-16/A is beneath the statement Ex.PW-12/A made by HC Anil PW-12 and as recorded by SI Naresh PW-16. The statement Ex.PW12/A reads as under:I am posted in Police Station Kotwali as Head Constable. On the intervening night of 3/4-03-2005 along with Const. Ved Prakash No. 2074/N my duty was at Chhatta Rail Picket from 9:00 PM to 9:00 AM. Today on 4.3.2005 at about 4:45 AM when I was present out of the police booth Chhatta Rail Chowk along with Const. Ved Prakash, a boy whose name and address was learnt later on, on interrogation, as Alam s/o Ajmad R/o Village-Mishol, Distt.Sitamarhi, Bihar came and told that a man named Raja was committing bad act with children forcefully by way of showing the terror of blade near bus stand and that the said person had attempted to do bad act with him also but he had managed to ...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of Baroda Vs. Vijay Mahipal and Co.
Court: Delhi
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. In this appeal, the appellant seeks to assail the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge whereby the suit of the respondent/plaintiff was decreed for the relief of possession.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are not in controversy. The appellant and the respondent had entered into a lease deed dated 27.05.2004 in respect of the ground floor measuring 1203.12 sq.ft., basement 1378.12 sq.ft. and mezzanine floor measuring 1011.74 sq.ft., admeasuring in all 3592.98 sq.ft., situated at 32, Community Centre, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Naraina, New Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 71,860/- (Rupees Seventy One Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Only), subject to tax deduction at source as per Income Tax Rules in force from time to time. The said lease deed was for a period of five years from 01.09.2003 to 31.08.2008.3. By a letter dated 28.04.2008, the appellant extended an offer to the respondent for renewal...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Sh. Deepak Sinha and anr.
Court: Delhi
Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioner, Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Department of Telecom has challenged the order dated 21st August, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 2610 of 2008, titled as 'Sh. Hari Shankar Sharma v. Union of India' and in O.A. No. 2672 of 2008, titled as 'Sh. Deepak Sinha v. Union of India', allowing the Original Applications of the respondents and setting aside the memorandum of charge issued against them and awarding simple interest @ 8% per annum and arrears of retirement dues to respondent No. 2.2. Brief facts to comprehend the disputes are that respondent No. 2, Sh. Hari Shankar Sharma superannuated on 31st July, 2000, who had been issued a memorandum of charge on 10th September, 2003 for the incidents of 1996 to 1998. The enquiry officer and the presenting officer were appointed on 10th March, 2004 and thereafter no further action was taken till 3rd December, 2008 which re...
Tag this Judgment!Amitava Bhowmick Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Mool Chand Garg, J.C.M. No. 7311/2010For the reasons stated in the application, delay in refilling the petition is condoned and the application is allowed.W.P. (C.) No. 3654/20101. The short point involved in the petition is as to whether the petitioner was entitled to weightage of added years of service in accordance with Rule 30 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 which reads as under:30. Addition to qualifying service in special circumstances: (1) [A Government servant who retires from a service or post after the 31st March, 1960], shall be eligible to add to his service qualifying for superannuation pension (but not for any other class of pension) the actual period not exceeding one-fourth of the length of his service or the actual period by which his age at the time of recruitment exceeded twenty-five years or a period of five years, whichever is less, if the service or post to which the Government servant is appointed is one(a) for which Post-graduate research or specialist qualific...
Tag this Judgment!Triveni Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
ORDERP.K. Bhasin, J.1. The petitioner Company is into the business of development of real estate. It claims that during the years 2006-07 it had invited bookings for allotment of flats and plots in their projects in different cities after having obtained necessary licences and other clearances from the concerned Government departments. Thousands of persons invested money with the petitioner Company in the hope of getting flats/plots. The petitioner Company claims that due to global economic recession speculative investors suddenly started cancelling their bookings and refund was being claimed from the petitioner Company as they did not expect profit any more from the bookings and in order to pressurize the Company to pay them the money some of the investors converted the dispute of refund of money, which was purely a civil dispute, into a criminal case of cheating by lodging a complaint with the Economic Offences Wing(EOW) of the Delhi Police on 24th December, 2008 and on the basis of ...
Tag this Judgment!B.N. Gupta and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
ORDERP.K. Bhasin, J.1. This is an anticipatory bail application filed by three Directors of M/s Triveni Infrastructure Development Company Ltd. apprehending their arrest by the police for their involvement in a criminal case registered against them on 24th December, 2008 by the Economic Offences Wing(EOW) of the Delhi Police vide FIR No. 234 of 2008 under Sections 406/420/34 IPC.2. The petitioners' case may be noticed at the outset. The petitioners claim that they have been falsely implicated by some handful of people who were speculative investors in the real estate projects developed by the petitioners' Company M/s Triveni Infrastructure Development Company Ltd.(hereinafter to be referred to as 'Triveni') Those complainants remained invested in the projects announced in 2006-07 to be developed by Triveni to earn profits when there was boom and appreciation in the prices of real estate but they sought cancellation of their bookings in the year 2008 during sudden and steep fall in the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Handicrafts and Handlooms Exports Corporation of India Limited Vs. ...
Court: Delhi
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge dated 21.05.2009 wherein and whereunder the suit filed by the plaintiff, being Suit No. 611/2008 was held to be hit by Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and hence not maintainable before the Civil Court.2. The plaintiff, who is the appellant in the appeal, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, inter alia, with the following prayers:a. Pass a decre of declaration that the request for the arbitration made by the defendant No. 1 on 18/03/08 bearing reference No. 1634 submitted by the defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2 as illegal and invalid and the impugned notice issued by defendant No. 2 on 20/03/2008 pursuant thereto and/or relating thereto as illegal, invalid and void;b. Pass a decree of declaration that the defendant No. 2 has no jurisdiction and initiation of arbitration proceeding vide its letter dated March 20, 2008 is illegal...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. P.K. Mathur
Court: Delhi
Mool Chand Garg, J.Caveat No. 95/2010Since counsel for the caveator has put in appearance, the caveat stands disposed of.WP(C) No. 3638/20101. This writ petition has been filed by the Union of India under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 27.08.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in OA No. 1600/2007 and MA No. 1152/2008, whereby the original application filed by P.K. Mathur, the respondent herein, was allowed.2. Briefly stating, the facts of this case are that the respondent is an officer of 1975 batch of the Central Engineering Service (CES). He was posted as Executive Engineer at Bhopal from 24.06.1991 to 31.03.1995. On 05.06.2003 the respondent received a show cause notice, the gist of which was that the respondent passed and paid the 4th RA Bill amounting to Rs. 95,618/- on 23.10.1991 to M/s. Veena Construction on 23.10.1991, in which excess length of 1616.66 metre of barbed wired fencin...
Tag this Judgment!Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors. Vs. Jag Saran
Court: Delhi
Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioner, Govt. of NCT of Delhi through Commissioner of Police and Ors. has challenged the order dated 22nd August, 2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA 2225/2006 titled as HC Jag Saran v. Commissioner of Police and Ors., whereby the application of the respondent for quashing and setting aside the order of Disciplinary Authority dated 9th June, 2005 and the order of the Appellate authority dated 23rd June, 2006, imposing a penalty of forfeiture of five years of approved service permanently was allowed and the order of punishment dated 9th June, 2005 and the Appellate Order dated 23rd June, 2006 were set aside and the respondent was held to be entitled for all consequential benefits including regularization of his period of suspension, as per Rules.2. The relevant facts to comprehend the controversies between the parties are that FIR Nos. 1082/1997 and 1083/ 1997 were filed on 17th December, 1997 against the respondent, consequ...
Tag this Judgment!Court on Its Motion Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
ORDER1. On the basis of a report submitted by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate the present writ petition was instituted. The report of the learned Magistrate disclosed a shocking state of affairs which pertain to the use of the cell phones in Tihar Jail despite the jammers and CCTV cameras having been installed in the said jail.2. It is worth noting that a status report was called for from the State, and on the basis of the direction on the previous occasion a status report has been filed. To appreciate the factual scenario in completeness, we reproduce the relevant portion of the status report:5. That the prisoners who are involved in offences against the State, terrorist activities, MCOCA, NSA, PSA and otherwise involved in multiple heinous offences such as robbery dacoity, murder, kidnapping for ransom etc. are kept in the high security/special security wards of the jail under strict surveillance. The high security wards are being manned round the clock by the personnel drawn from ...
Tag this Judgment!