Delhi Court July 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 25 of about 331 results (0.010 seconds)Laxmi Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd Vs Registrar Coop. Society and o ...
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? %1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner society against the orders of the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal dated 25.4.1994 and 6.6.1994. The respondent No.3 had initiated Arbitration proceedings under Section 60 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act against the excess interest claimed by the society/petitioners herein and the ward and maintenance charges claimed by the petitioner society/petitioners herein and the ward and maintenance charges claimed by the petitioner society. The arbitration petition was however dismissed on 21.6.1993 and in the appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the arbitrator setting aside the Arbitration Award dated 21.6.1993. The arbitrator however again dismissed the claim of the respo...
Tag this Judgment!Sh.B.N.Wadhwani Sole Prop. of Vs M/S Calcom Electronics Ltd
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.(Oral)1. Plaintiff M/s Jeewan Diesels (Delhi) through its proprietor Sh.B.N. Wadhwani had agreed to supply 750 KVA D.G. sets to defendant no.1 to be installed at 23/1, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi-52. Advance payment of Rs.4,00,000/- was received by the plaintiff on 29.3.1989 from defendant no.4. Plaintiff placed an order for the supply of the said D.G. sets with its manufacturer namely M/s Kirloskar Cummins Ltd. The D.G. Sets were to be commissioned at the site by 30.4.1989. In June 1989 the manufacturer raised the prices of the D.G.sets by 10% with effect from 1.7.1989. The said information was communicated by the plaintiff to the defendant. The enhanced price, however, was not paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. Suit for this amount i.e. a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- along with interest was accordi...
Tag this Judgment!Parag Tyagi and anr Vs Uoi 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. The petitioners, being applicants for admission to the Medical Colleges of Delhi for the academic session 2010-11 and for which an examination (DUMET) was conducted by the respondent no.4 University of Delhi, by this writ petition seek setting aside of the said examination and a direction for the entrance examination to be re-conducted. It is the case of the petitioners that as per the instructions of the respondent no.4 University of Delhi, the Optical Mark Reader (OMR) answer sheets were required to be coloured by HB Pencil only instead of in ink. It is the further case of the petitioners that several other Universities/Colleges also using the OMR answer sheets, require colouring thereof in ink and which eliminates the possibility of tampering. It is the case of the petitioners that the result of...
Tag this Judgment!Dtc Vs Satish Chand
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)In spite of being served, the caveator has not appeared. Hence the caveat is discharged. CM No.7783/2010 Allowed subject to just exceptions. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.3.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing O.A.No.2254/2009.2. Satish Chand, the respondent was the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal and was aggrieved by the fact that the Disciplinary Authority had passed an order removing him from service after an inquiry was held and the Appellate Authority had rendered him partial justice by modifying the penalty imposed and replaced the same by directing that two increments would be withheld without cumulative effect and the period Satish Kumar remained under suspension would be treated as "no work no wages" i.e. the result was th...
Tag this Judgment!Government of Nct of Delhi Vs Raja Ram
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. (ORAL)1. The applicable conditions of recruitment to the post of OT Technician are as under:(i) B.Sc. or equivalent degree from a recognized university(ii) Two years Operation Theatre Attendant CourseOr(i) Matriculation/Higher Secondary/10+2 Senior Secondary in Science(ii) 10 years experience in any recognized hospital as O.T./CSSD/Anaesthesia Pipeline Technician/Anaesthesia Workshop.2. It is apparent that two sets of educational qualifications and experience have been prescribed as eligibility conditions.3. The first is a B.Sc or equivalent degree from a recognized university with two years OT Attendant's course. The other is a matriculation/higher secondary/senior secondary degree in science with 10 years experience in the applicable field prescribed by the Rules.4. It is apparent that persons having higher ed...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Wanti Bai Vs State 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 in the Digest? YesORDER.1.This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside of the order dated 21.4.2010, passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi vide which application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 (1) of Code of Civil Procedure (for short as Code) was dismissed with costs of Rs.2,000/-.2. The brief facts which emerges from the impugned order are that, petitioner filed a petition before the trial Court for grant of probate on 16.12.2006 on the basis of Will of her deceased mother Smt. Talian Bai, dated 31.12.1990. The property in question was purchased by Sh. Ram Chand, husband of deceased Smt. Talian Bai. As per the petition, Smt. Talian Bai had become the owner of the property on the basis of the Will dated 7.2.1971 executed by Sh. Ram Chand. Neither the o...
Tag this Judgment!Puran Singh Vs the State of Nct of Delhi
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 Digest ?ORDER.(ORAL)1. This appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment dated 17th August, 2007 and the consequent order on sentence dated 21st August, 2007 whereby the appellant Puran Singh has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 and 363 IPC and sentenced him accordingly.2. Appellant Puran Singh was employed at a Water Pump near Khajuri Khas. Prosecutrix (name withheld) was acquainted with him. On 03.04.2005, appellant Puran Singh induced the prosecutrix to accompany him to Bareilly. Wazid, a young boy of 09 years and nephew of prosecutrix was also present at that time and the prosecutrix as well as Wazid agreed to go to Bareilly with the appellant. However, Wazid could not adjust at Bareilly, so the appellant sent him back to Delhi by making him board a bus from Bareilly to Delhi. On reaching Delh...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs Smt. Premlata
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.This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 10th February, 2010, passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi, vide which application of the petitioner filed under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for short as "Code" was dismissed.2. Brief facts of this case are that petitioner herein, filed a suit for Specific Performance and Injunction on the basis of Agreement to Sell entered into by respondent with him, on 21st May, 2002. On 24th May, 2007, petitioner came to know that respondent herein, is trying to sell the suit property.3. On 25th September, 2007, in the presence of respondent, trial court passed restrain order against him.4. In the written statement filed by the respondent, she disclosed that she has di...
Tag this Judgment!Basant Lal Memorial College of Eduucation Vs National Council for Teac ...
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 by these two writ petitions seeks stay of the operation of the orders (contained in the minutes of the 160th meeting held from 18th May to 20th May, 2010) of the Northern Regional Committee (NRC) of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), derecognizing the B.Ed. and D.Ed. courses for imparting education in which the petitioner had earlier been recognized. The petitioner has preferred statutory appeals to the NCTE (under Section 18 of NCTE Act, 1993) against the orders of the NRC and which are pending. The counsel for the respondent no.2 who appears on advance notice states that NCTE, while exercising the appellate jurisdiction has no power to grant interim relief or to stay the operation of the order appealed before it. This Court, in several other cases, in this view of the ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Sudha Steel Manufacturer. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Ex ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 39-CE/GZB/2007 dated 27.4.2007. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The original authority confirmed the demand of Rs.1,03,139/- holding that they have availed the credit wrongly. The credit of Rs.27,551/- was sought to be denied on the ground of a technical violation of Rules. The items to which this amount relate are not mentioned. The rest of the amount sought to be denied relates to steel Sections, MS channel, MS angle, roughly shaped forged round and spindle, forged roll etc. The demand relating to the period June, 2002 to November, 2004 has been raised by show cause notice dated 1.8.2006. 4. Learned Advocate for the appellants primarily contested the demand on time bar aspect. 5. Learned SDR submits that the credit is not admissible on the impugned items in the light of decision of Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. vs. CCE Raipur reported in [2010 (253) ELT 440]. 6. After hearing the submi...
Tag this Judgment!