Delhi Court July 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 18 of about 331 results (0.026 seconds)Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development Vs M.Annamalai
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)Caveat No.135/2010 Since caveator appears, the caveat stands discharged. CM No.9066/2010 Allowed subject to just exceptions.1. Learned counsel for the respondent to whom advance copy of the petition has been served waives notice.2. Counsel state that the writ petition be disposed of today itself.3. Rule DB.4. Heard for disposal.5. As a sequel to a departmental enquiry, a penalty of reduction by one stage in the time scale of pay for a period of 2 years with further direction that during this period the respondent shall not earn increment was passed vide order dated 1.11.2004.6. The case of the respondent for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer matured for consideration in the year 2008 and since the relevant rules required the selection through a DPC constituted by the UPSC, reference was made to UPSC....
Tag this Judgment!Esi Corporation and anr. Vs Shri Surender Kumar
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)Since counsel as above appears for the caveators in the three captioned writ petitions, the caveats stand discharged. CM No.8440/2010 in WP(C) 4255/2010, CM No.8442/2010 in WP(C) 4256/2010 and CM No.8444/2010 in WP(C) 4257/2010.Allowed subject to just exceptions. CM No.8807/2010 in WP(C) 4257/20101. Applicant Surender Kumar who is respondent No.4 in the WP(C)No.4257/2010 prays that having got appointment in Dr.Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi his name may be struck off as respondent No.4 and it be declared that he does not seek the benefit of the order passed in his favour by the Central Administrative Tribunal.2. The application stands disposed of declaring that applicant Surender Kumar who was a co-petitioner in TA No.39/2010 before the Tribunal would not be entitled to either the benefit granted by...
Tag this Judgment!Jc 722890x Subedar B.K. Singh Vs Union of India 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 the Digest? YesORDER1. This application has been filed by the petitioner making a prayer to this court to grant liberty to him to file a fresh appeal against the GCM proceedings before the Armed Forces Tribunal.2. Before dealing with the prayer made in the application, it becomes necessary to notice a few essential facts. The petitioner while working as a Junior Commissioned Officer holding the rank of Subedar in the Indian Army, was tried by a General Court Martial held against him between 7th September, 2000 to 9th February, 2001. After a detailed consideration of the matter, by an order dated 9th February, 2001, the General Court Martial found him guilty of the first, second and sixth charges for which he had been tried and imposed a sentence of dismissal from service. The petitioner's statutory appeal under Section 16...
Tag this Judgment!Dalip Kumar Dhingra and ors. Vs. Mcd
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest? ORDER. 1. The petitioners by this writ petition impugn the notice dated 21st June, 2010 of the respondent MCD demanding from the petitioners the ad-hoc conversion charges, one time parking charges, additional FAR charges with respect to the basement and first floor and above of their shops situated in Defence Colony Market, New Delhi. It is inter alia the contention of the petitioners that the first floor of the said shops though meant initially for residential purposes were converted into commercial long prior to coming into force of the MPD-2021, in accordance with which the aforesaid charges are being demanded. 2. It is recorded in the demand letters impugned in this petition that the same were being issued as per the directions of the Monitoring Committee appointed by the Supreme Court. 3. The writ peti...
Tag this Judgment!National Highways Authority of India Vs M/S. Bsc-rbm-pati (Jv)
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers 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. CM No. 3844 of 2007 Exemption is allowed, subject to just exceptions. CM stands disposed of.2. CM Nos. 3843 & 15130 of 2007 in FAO No. 104 of 2007 and ARB. A. No. 12 of 2009 Both these matters are interconnected. For this reason, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.3. It may be mentioned that FAO No.104 of 2007 has already been decided vide orders dated 29.03.2007. It would be appropriate to take note of few facts in brief and the orders passed in FAO on 29.03.2007 before coming to the present proceedings.4. M/s. B. Seenaiah & Company and Others (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) was awarded a contract II for four laning including strengthening of existing two lane pavement between Raniganj and Panagarh in West Bengal (474 Km to 515.236 Km on NH 2) by National H...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Kumar Vs Union of India
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 in the No Digest?ORDER (Oral)1. The present petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of Constable (Bigular) in September-October, 2009. He is stated to have succeeded in the physical test, trade test and the written test which was conducted during the recruitment process. However, the petitioner was declared medically unfit by an order passed on 9th March, 2010 on the ground that his X-Ray depicted Bilateral Apical Reticulonodular Opacity also in mid lung zone. Placing reliance on his medical examination by the Department of Medicine in the Safdarjung Hospital. The petitioner made a prayer to the respondents for conduct of a review medical board. 2. The petitioner's request has been rejected by the impugned order dated 12th April, 2010 by the respondents on the sole ground that the application for the review medical ...
Tag this Judgment!Diwan Ranjan Sawhney and anr. Vs Chhotu Ram (Since Deceased) Through L ...
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 present execution petition has been filed by Sh. Bipin Gujral who is alleged to be the assignee of Sh. Diwan Ranjan Sawhney, against the Judgment Debtors praying that direction be issued to the registry to get the sale deed registered in favour of Sh. Bipin Gujral S/o. Sh. Prem Gujral in view of the judgment and decree passed by this court on 26.08.1998 in CS(OS) No. 1698/1988.2. Originally the Suit for Specific Performance of agreement to sell dated 19.12.1986 was filed by both Sh. Diwan Ranjan Sawhney and Bipin Gujral against Sh. Chhotu Ram, Sh. Likhi Ram, Sh. Ramesh, Sh. Ishwar and Sh. Amarjit (minor through Smt. Nirmala Devi, mother and natural guardian). It is stated in the Plaint that the Defendants in the Suit entered into an agreement to sell dated 19.12.1986 with the Plaintiff whereby t...
Tag this Judgment!Subrata Mukherjee Vs AchIn Vinayak and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in the Digest?ORDER.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to respondent nos. 2 and 3 to remove respondent no. 1 from the post of Head of Department ("HoD" for brevity) of Political Science being junior to the petitioner and not eligible for the said post.2. The facts necessary for deciding the present petition are that the petitioner is a professor in the department of political science at respondent no. 2 University of Delhi. A detailed bio profile of the petitioner has been given in the petition which shows that the petitioner has been a Reader at respondent no. 2 from 1979 to 1989 and a Professor at respondent no. 2 since 1989 and retired as Professor in the Departm...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Indian Sugar Exim Corporation Ltd Vs Subhash Chand Kohli
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? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER.1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 23.02.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge affirming and endorsing the finding of the Trial Court dated 03.05.2003 whereby future mesne profits had been granted to the plaintiff for period 10.08.1990 to 30.09.2001 in view of the fact that the property had stood vacated on 01.10.2001.2. The present being a second appeal, the substantial question of law as formulated by a Single Judge of this Court on 12.12.2007 reads as follows:-"Whether the findings by the Courts below that respondents is entitled to mesne profits @ Rs.70,000/- per month is based on legally admissible/or creditworthy evidence. If so, effect thereof?" 3. The Single Judge of this Court had modified the order of the First Appellate Court and the mesne p...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Saxena Vs State
Court: Delhi
ORDER1. In spite of the second call none has appeared on behalf of the respondent No 2, Mr. S. S.Kulkarni.2. Respondent no. 2 herein is an accused facing prosecution in the charge sheet filed in FIR No. 479/1999 dated 22/11/1999. The petitioner herein Mr. Anil Sexena has been shown in column no. 2 in the said charge sheet as a person who has not been sent to trial. In the charge sheet , it is stated that the petitioner and respondent no. 2 had been opened a new bank account in the name of the partnership firm M/s Millinium Education Consultants and had deposited a banker's cheque of Rs.45 lakh drawn by the Indian Overseas Bank on 15.11.1999. This instrument was found to be forged and not issued by the said bank.3. As per the chargesheet, the said offence was committed by Mr. S.S. Kulkarni. Mr. S. S. Kulkarni was summoned and thereafter charge was framed against him by the learned trial court. While arguing on the point of charge, Mr. S.S. Kulkarni had submitted that cognizance of the o...
Tag this Judgment!