Delhi Court June 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 5 of about 102 results (0.020 seconds)Yagyaval Sharma Vs D.S.C.S.C. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in the Digest?ORDER.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia praying that non grant of enhanced age of superannuation as 60 years is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also sought a direction to consider and grant enhanced age of superannuation up to 60 years to the petitioner and set aside the order dated 08.05.2008 superannuating the petitioner at the age of 58 years.2. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 1981, the petitioner was appointed in Delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation. In 1985, the Recruitment Rules of the Corporation were framed on the lines of the Central and Delhi Government Pay Scales which are governed on the lines of the Central Pay Pattern. In May, 1998, ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Audi Automobiles and Other Vs. C.C.and C.Ex, Indore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per Shri Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar: Since a common question of law and facts arise in all these appeals, we take up the appeals in terms of the order passed today in Stay Applications No.17, 18, 780 of 2010 and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the appellants and the learned SDR for the respondent, it is seen that there is no dispute that there was error on the part of the adjudicating authority in calculating the appropriate quantum of the duty liability of the appellants. This is also apparent from the letter dated 4th May 2010 by the Commissioner addressed to the Registrar of the Tribunal. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the point which is sought to be raised in that regard, it is necessary to set aside the impugned order relating to the quantum of duty and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to ascertain the correct liability of the appellants in relation to the duty amount. Hence on the said l...
Tag this Judgment!Yogender Kumar @ Mule Vs State
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER.(Oral)1. Const.Narender Kumar PW-14 has not been cross- examined. The photographs Ex.P-6 to Ex.P-10 taken by him conclusively establish that the scene of the crime was inside a room in House No.7/24, Yudhisther Gali, Vishwas Nagar. The investigating officer ASI Balraj Singh PW-23 has not been cross-examined on his testimony that he prepared the site plan Ex.PW-23/C listing therein the spot where the crime was committed being spot A. Thus, learned counsel for the appellant concedes that with reference to the testimony of Ramesh Chand Gupta PW-2 and his brother Suresh Chand Gupta PW-3 who turned hostile only when they were cross- examined, keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court reported as AIR 1991 SC 1853 Khujji v. State of MP, the inevitable conclusion which has to be drawn is that it is the appell...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Amarpreet Enterprises Pvt Ltd and anr. Vs Registrar of Companies
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER.1. This petition has been filed under S.560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking restoration of the name of the petitioner company to the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies. M/s Amarpreet Enterprises Private Limited was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 6th January, 1979 vide Certificate of Incorporation No. 55-009393 as a private limited company with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana.2. M/s Amarpeet Enterprises Private Ltd., is petitioner No. 1, and its Director, Bawa Amarjyot Singh, is petitioner No.2.3. The Registrar of Companies, i.e the respondent herein, struck the companys name off the Register due to defaults in statutory compliances, namely, default in filing annual returns for the period 30.09.1986 to 30.09.2009 and balance sheets ...
Tag this Judgment!Rupesh Kumar Chaudhary @ Roop Lal @ ... Vs State
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. Two FIRs, being FIR No.205/2003 under Section 302/201 IPC PS Nabi Karim (Ex.PW-1/A) and FIR No.303/2003 under Section 366 IPC PS Sriniwaspuri (also exhibited as Ex.PW-1/A) were the subject matter of two Sessions Trials being SC No.87/2009 and SC No.88/2009. Both were clubbed for the reason they related to the same victim; Sweety. The appellant was the accused. He has been acquitted of the charge for having committed the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC, but has been convicted for the offence of having murdered Sweety. He has been acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. The impugned decision is dated 24.2.2010. The order on sentence dated 24.2.2010 has directed the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence of murder.2. The impugned decision, which i...
Tag this Judgment!Ncert and anr. Vs Surinder Nath and anr.
Court: Delhi
(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment?(2) To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes (3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest Yes1. Impugned in this appeal is the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 13.02.1989 and that of the First Appellate Court dated 18.02.1991, whereby the suit filed by the Respondent for declaration and permanent injunction was partly decreed and he was granted the relief of declaration as prayed by him.2. Precisely, the facts which led to the filing of the suit by the Respondent No.1 are that Respondent No.1 (plaintiff in the suit) was appointed as a Lecturer in Agriculture, Regional College of Education, Mysore on 22.09.1964 by the Director of the appellant, National Council of Educational Research & Training (hereinafter referred to as Council) (defendant in the suit). He was appointed in substantive capacity w.e.f. 1.11.1965 by the appellant Council vide letter dated 15.11.1969. Respondent was transfe...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Sharex Acting Through Vinod .Kumar Chada Vs Smt. Sudershan Suri
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?ORDER.1. This appeal seeks to assail the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge whereby on a suit filed by the respondent against the appellant for ejectment and for recovery of Rs.4,03,519/-, the learned Additional District Judge held the respondent entitled for possession of the suit premises and directed the appellant to hand over and deliver the actual, physical, vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question to the respondent. 2. The facts as set out in the plaint by the plaintiff-respondent are as follows. The respondent is the exclusive and absolute owner of property No.309, 3rd floor, Padma Tower-II, Rajindra Place, New Delhi-110008 (hereinafter called the suit property) by virtue of allotment made in favour of the respondent by Bhatia Sehgal Construction Corpor...
Tag this Judgment!Virender Singh Panwar Vs Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
1.Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2.To be referred to Reporter or not? YES 3.Whether the judgment should be YES reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. An advertisement was issued by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC for short) on 05.03.1994 for recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector (Executive). The scheme of examination required a candidate to qualify in the written examination to be followed by a personality test, physical test and physical measurements including vision test. The examination was held on 03.07.1994 and the petitioner participated in the same. The petitioner was successful in the written examination, result of which were declared on 19.07.1995. However, in the physical efficiency test, the petitioner failed and thus was not recruited.2. The petitioner challenged the action of his non recruitment for failing the physical test by filing OA No.1523/1995 and prayed for a second physical test. The CAT acceded to the said request an...
Tag this Judgment!Tilak Raj Mehandiratta Vs State
Court: Delhi
ORDER1. The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 19/03/2010 dismissing the application that the petitioner had filed for ascertaining whether Mr. Madhukar Gupta, Vice -Chairman in DDA had given sanction for prosecution and why the said sanction was not placed on record and why Mr. Madhukar Gupta's name was mentioned in the list of witnesses supplied to the accused. It was alleged in the application that the prosecution changed the sanction order and changed the witnesses and this had caused miscarriage of justice.2. The present petition itself is not maintainable as the order passed by the learned trial court dated 19/03/2010 is an interlocutory order. Further, on merits also there is no justification and reason to interfere with the impugned order.3. The charge sheet was filed in the court on 23/11/2005 along with the sanction order passed by Mr. Dinesh Rai, the then Vice-Chairman, DDA which was received alongwith covering letter dated 26/10/2005. Copy of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmala and Others Vs Government of Nct of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest Yes ORDER1. Through this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a direction for quashing / setting aside Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the DLR Act) as being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India, and also being impliedly repealed by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The petitioners are also seeking a direction to the respondents to mutate the disputed agricultural land left by the deceased husband of petitioner No. 1, equally, in favour of the petitioners and respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. 2. The petitioners herein are the widow (petitioner no. 1) and two minor daughters (petitioner Nos. 2 and 3) of Late Shri Inder Singh, the owner of the disputed land, who died intestate on 15.12.2006. Prior to his marriage with petitioner No.1 (Nirma...
Tag this Judgment!