Delhi Court July 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 22 of about 331 results (0.024 seconds)Finite Infratech Ltd Vs Ifci 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 ORDERComes the anguished cry Wake, Wake, great Shiva, Our body grows weary Of its law-fixed path, Give us new form Sing our destruction, That we gain new life. Rabindranath Tagore.1.This is how the great Tagore saw the invocation of Lord Shivas attribute of simultaneously being a destroyer and a creator. The destruction of the body to enable the heart or soul to gain a new life in a new form. Perhaps, this very principle of Hindu philosophy has been borrowed by western thinkers and, ultimately, by the economist Schumpeter in his concept of creative destruction (see: creative destruction in Economics: Nietzsche, Sombart, Schumpeter by Higo Reinert and Erik S. Reinert).2. But, what has all this got to do with this case? This will become clear, shortly. This much is evident, conceptually speaking, that destruction n...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Jal Board and ors. Vs Sudhir Kumar Gupta
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 the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER: Since the respondent-caveator appears through counsel as above-noted. The Caveat is discharged.1. The respondent is an employee of Delhi Jal Board and was issued a charge sheet vide memorandum dated 01.04.2001.2. The gravamen of the allegation of misconduct against the respondent was that he failed to detect the unauthorized water connection at House No.1570 to 1575, Gali Hira Singh, Navin Shahdara.3. The respondent denied the charge and stated that after a complaint was received that an unauthorized water connection was in existence in the house in question he visited the house on 19.06.2000, but found that the allegation was incorrect.4. The disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the reply filed to the charge sheet and appointed an inquiry officer. 5. The inquiry officer submitted a report, and after di...
Tag this Judgment!Abhishekh Khurana and Others Vs State
Court: Delhi
ORDER1.This revision petition is directed against the order dated 28th May, 2008 directing framing of charge under Sections 306/406/34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The impugned order passed by the Additional Session Judge is a fairly detailed order referring to several judgments, which were cited before him. 2. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, complainant and the State.3. Preeti Verma, the deceased was about 24 years of age when she was engaged to the petitioner No.1, Abhishekh Khurana in a ceremony held on 8th July, 2006. The marriage was fixed for 20th January, 2007. Preeti Verma committed suicide on 6th December, 2006. In the charge sheet filed by the police, it is stated as under:-"On 26.11.06, Abhishek and his mother Kanta Khurana and his father and Mausa (uncle) Mr. Chawla and his aunt Mrs. Sudesh Chawla and her daughter Geeta Jaitley had come at our house, they took foo...
Tag this Judgment!Prateek Singh Patel Vs Medical Council of India and anr
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 student of MBBS of S. Nijalingappa Medical College, Navanagar, Karnataka (which has not been made party to the petition) affiliated to respondent no.2 Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka, has filed this writ petition impugning the order dated 15th December, 2009 of the respondent no.1 Medical Council of India rejecting the application of the petitioner for migration to B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh affiliated to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University (both of which have also not been impleaded as a party). The petitioner also seeks a mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 University to issue NOC for migration aforesaid of the petitioner.2. The results of the first professional examination of the petitioner were declared on 29th August, 2008. As...
Tag this Judgment!Surya Charitable Welfare Society Vs Central Board of Trustees...
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 writ petition has been filed by the petitioner M/s. Surya Charitable & Welfare Society (Regd.) seeking direction for quashing of order dated 11.12.2009 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.630(4)2008 on the ground that the impugned order is non-speaking as many vital averments of the petitioner have not been dealt with and no findings have been given by the appellate authority and further directions are sought that the orders dated 15.1.2008/26.2.2008 passed under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and orders dated 1.7.2008/30.7.2008 passed under Section 7-B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 are against the law and principles of natural justice. 2. The brief facts are ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Tilak and ors. Vs Smt. Veena
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 in the Digest? YesORDER.1.Present revision petition has been filed against judgment and order dated 15th March, 2010, passed by Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, vide which respondents eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) read with section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (for short as Act) was allowed.2. Brief facts of this case are that one shop situated on ground floor bearing no. 1786-A, Lal Quan, Delhi was let out by respondent to the petitioners for non residential purposes and the same is required bonafide by the respondent. Respondent is the owner of the shop in question and she needs the same for running a shop by her son as neither she nor her son has any other reasonably suitable accommodation in Delhi for the said purpose. The premises in dispute was let out long back to the predecessor in interest of ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Rita Sehgal Vs Mcd and anr
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 has instituted this petition for quashing the order of the respondent no.2 being the Monitoring Committee constituted by the Supreme Court vide orders in M.C. Mehta's case as well as the notice dated 1st July, 2010 issued by the respondent no.1 MCD to the petitioner threatening sealing of the shop of the petitioner in property no.D-14/213, Section 8, Rohini, Delhi on the ground of misuse of running a Beauty Parlour therein. The respondent no.1 MCD in its notice dated 1 st July, 2010 (supra) itself has stated that the same was being issued as per the directions of the Monitoring Committee.2. The counsel for the respondent no.1 MCD appearing on advance notice informs that in pursuance to the notice dated 1 st July, 2010, the premises of the petitioner were sealed yesterday. The counsel fo...
Tag this Judgment!Sham Kishore Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies 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 YES reported in the Digest?ORDER. (Oral)1. The petition relates to the challenge laid by the petitioner to Rule 16 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973 (the said Rules for short), which has since been repealed, and the notice issued to the petitioner dated 28.12.1993 by the Registrar Cooperative Societies (RCS for short) purporting to exercise powers under Rule 16(2) of the said Rules as also quashing of the order dated 07.07.1994 passed in pursuance thereto.2. The matter was taken up on 05.07.2010 when Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate was present in the court for some other matter who used to appear for RCS. Mr.Poddar indicated that possibly this rule has already been quashed by this Court. However, no reported judgment was available, but in view of the particulars provided by Mr.Poddar, file in respect of WP(C) No.1710/1987 was...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagat Singh Vs the Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No be allowed to see the Judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest?ORDER. (Oral)1. The respondents No.3 to 7 are served and are duly represented through counsel.2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for protection from the purported illegal harassment and torture on the part of the respondents No.3 to 7 and to restrain the said respondents from entering the Gurudwara constructed in front of House No.E-245, Wazir Pur, J.J. Colony, Delhi. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1965, his parents constructed a Gurudwara in front of their house at the aforesaid address and started sewa and became caretakers thereof. After their demise, the petitioner, who is handicapped, became the caretaker of the Gurudwara and survives on the donations made by the devotees, who visit the Gurudwara. It is averred in the petition that the respondents No.3...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Darbara Singh and Sons Vs the Commissioner of Industries 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 in or about the year 1996 applied to the respondent no.1 Commissioner of Industries of the Government of NCT of Delhi (impleaded as respondent no.2) for allotment of an industrial plot under the Relocation Scheme framed in compliance of the order of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta case. The said application of the petitioner was rejected. Neither the petitioner nor the respondents are in a position to give the date of the order of rejection. However, it appears that the petitioner applied for review of the said order and which review was entertained and was disposed of vide communication of the respondent no.1 to the petitioner filed as Annexure 'C' to the petition. Though the date of the said communication also is not apparent but both counsels agree that the same is of later part of t...
Tag this Judgment!