Delhi Court June 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 9 of about 102 results (0.021 seconds)M/S Srinivas Malliah Memorial ... Vs Regional Provident Fund
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest?ORDER.1. The petitioner, a Charitable Trust duly registered under the Income Tax Act,1961 with the objective of imparting training in traditional handicrafts such as puppet making, mask making, bamboo crafts, paper figures, toys, embroidery, tailoring and needle work without the use of power, instituted this writ petition impugning the order dated 9/11 June, 1989 of the respondent RPFC assessing a sum of Rs.1,61,814/- to be due from it towards provident fund for the period April, 1984 to March, 1989 and directing the petitioner Trust to pay the said amount within 15 days of the receipt of the order. This Court vide ex parte order dated 25th July, 1989 while issuing notice of the petition, stayed the recovery of the amount in pursuance to the order aforesaid. Rule was issued in the petition on 23rd November, 19...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. JaIn Vs Jyoti Jain
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 ORAL1. Allowed subject to all just exceptions.1. This application under Section 151 CPC has been made by the applicant/ respondent with a prayer that the Court should delete from its order dated 19th September 2008 paragraph 39 to 42 of an affidavit reproduced by the Court in paragraph 3 of the order. This prayer is made on the ground that the paragraphs reproduced from affidavit of Mr. Rajender Sirkae contained defamatory averments vis-a-vis the applicant and since they have been reproduced in the judgment of this Court, the judgment was being used by the non applicant/petitioner to defame the applicant.2. I find no reason to entertain this application. It is clear from the order that the paragraphs of the affidavit were reproduced to show that the affidavit was not relevant for adjudicating issues before the trial cou...
Tag this Judgment!Rajinder Singh Vs M/S Beltek Appliances Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest?ORDER.1. The petitioner workman has instituted the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent no.1 M/s Beltek Appliances Ltd. and the respondent nos.2 & 3 described as Directors of the said M/s Beltek Appliances Ltd. to allow the petitioner workman to join duty henceforth and also to pay to him back wages with interest and to otherwise comply with the order dated 2nd February, 2002 of the Industrial Tribunal. The order dated 2nd February, 2002 of the Industrial Tribunal was made on an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act filed by one M/s Beltek Electronics Ltd. The Industrial Tribunal vide the said order dated 2nd February, 2002 held the said M/s Beltek Electronics Ltd. to have not conducted a valid inquiry prior to dismissal of the petitioner workman and the said M/s Beltek Elec...
Tag this Judgment!Sh.Shiv Shankar Murada Vs State and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO the Digest?ORDER.This is a petition seeking quashing of FIR No.115/2005 under Sections 448/380/427 of IPC, Police Station Rajinder Nagar and the proceedings emanating out of the said FIR. The dispute arose on account of the demolition of the premises of Dr.H.J.Chibbar in the market at 56, Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi in the night of 20th/25th July, 2005 and damage caused to the medical equipment and furniture etc of the respondent No.2. An FIR was registered against the petitioner on account of this.Later on a settlement has been arrived at between the respondent No.2 who was a tenant with the petitioner Sh.Shiv Shankar Murada who was a landlord and under the settlement the parties agreed that the respondent No.2 Dr.H.J.Chibbar shall surrender her tenancy rights in respect of the property which was demolished, to the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Leela Sharma Vs Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
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 yes in the Digest?ORDER.1. This writ petition inter alia raises the following questions for adjudication:(i) Whether a teacher in a recognized unaided private school can be compulsorily retired under Fundamental Rule 56(j) and not by way of penalty.(ii) If that be so, where does the remedy, if any, of the said teacher lie, before the Tribunal constituted under the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 or by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or otherwise.2. The petitioner was employed as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in East Point School, Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi-110 096, the Chairman of whose Managing Committee and Principal are respondents 2 & 3 respectively. It is the case of the petitioner that she had joined the respondent School, then also recognized under the School Act, w.e.f. 1st Ja...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Dass Vs State (Nct) of Delhi
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER. (Oral)1. The appellant has been convicted for the offence of having murdered his daughter Seema. He has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. As per the prosecution, the motive for the crime was the wayward act of Seema in abandoning her husband and living in adultery with one Sriniwas, who happened to be the son of the maternal aunt of the appellant i.e. the relationship between Sriniwas and Seema was that of an uncle and cousin niece. Needless to state, the two were within prohibited relationship as per Hindu Law, of course, in North India, to which part of the country the parties belong, such a relationship is treated as incestuous. It attracts a social stigma and many a North Indians believe that such families have to be looked down upon. Obviously, the appellant felt humiliated and to avenge the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohit Gupta Vs U.O.i and ors.
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. The petitioners in this group of four writ petitions are aggrieved by the communication dated 04.05.2010 received from the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Settlement Commission), whereby they were informed of the rejection of their settlement applications filed under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The order of the Settlement Commission, which was communicated to the petitioners was as follows:-"Now that the writ petition has been withdrawn by the applicant and as the case already stands adjudicated even before filing the settlement applications, no case before the Commission exists."2. Section 32E, to the extent relevant, is as under:- 32E. Application for settlement of cases: (1) An assessee may, at a...
Tag this Judgment!Ali Jaan Vs State and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER. (Oral)1. Ali Jaan father of Mulla Ji (the deceased) has filed the above captioned appeal and has sought delay to be condoned in filing the appeal. The delay in filing the appeal is of 58 days.2. It is settled law that if issue arising in appeal is meritorious and needs consideration and further, if a manifest miscarriage of justice has resulted as a result of the view taken by the learned Trial Judge, the Appellate Court has to be liberal in condoning the delay in the appellant availing the appellate remedy. Thus, we are considering, on merits, the view taken by the learned Trial Judge, for if, we find that the view taken is perverse or has resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice, we would be inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal.3. A two-fold grievance has been raised in the appeal filed by A...
Tag this Judgment!In the Matter Of: Col Pk Saran Versus the Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The applicant has filed OA No 230/2010 in the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) challenging impugned order dated 09/10/2007 (Annexure A-1) by the Ministry of Defence rejecting his statutory complaint. 2. The applicant was commissioned on 02/09/1978 in Artillery. In Jan 1997 he was posted to DGQA in the rank of Major as tenure officer. The applicant was approved for promotion to the rank of Lt Col by No 4 selection board and based on overall performance was permanently seconded to DGQA in 11/ 2000. 3. The applicant was considered for promotion to the rank of Col by a Quality Assurance Selection Board on 20/06/2005 but not empanelled. The applicant submitted a statutory complaint on 19/07/2005 (Annexure 2). 4. The applicant submits that on 21/02/2006 he was communicated adverse remarks which were endorsed in his ACR for the period 01/06/2000 to 31/01/2001 and not communicated to him by any of the officers in the chain of reporting (Annexure A-3). The officer was informed that he was being...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Anshu Gupta and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes.1. This appeal has been preferred by the insurance company assailing award dated 22nd March, 2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs.17,48,486/- to the claimant/injured and giving right to the insurance company to recover this amount from the owner of the vehicle.2. The contention of the appellant is that since in this case the owner of the scooter was not having a valid driving license to drive the scooter and was having a driving license to drive the car, the insurance company should have been exonerated from its liability to pay compensation to the claimant rather than first paying it and then recovering it from the owner. Instead, the owner should have been directed to pay the compensation. Reliance was placed on National Insurance Company Limited v. Kusum Rai; 2006 ACJ 1336. Th...
Tag this Judgment!