Delhi Court July 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ravinder Kumar Vs Nct of Delhi (State)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
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. A learned single Judge of this court by an order dated 28.05.2009, referred the following question for a decision by the Division Bench:-"Whether the percentage of morphine in a sample of opium can by itself be determinative of the purity of the sample and whether such test is relevant or necessary for the purpose of considering the grant of bail or of awarding of sentence in terms of Section 18 read with Section 37 of the NDPS?"2. The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act) for possession of 5 kgs of opium and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years. In appeal, the appellant raised a plea before the learned single Judge that as the morphine content of the contraband sai...
Union of India Vs M/S S. Ranjan and Brothers
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
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 Union of India has preferred this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 seeking setting aside of the award dated 4th April, 2009 as modified on 29th May, 2009. Disputes and differences had arisen from a contract dated 25th June, 1999 placed by the petitioner Union of India on the respondent contractor for construction of 50 bedded hospital for National Security Guards (NSG) at Manesar. The arbitrator whose award is under challenge was appointed by this Court vide order dated 3rd April, 2006 in OMP No.422/2004.2. It was the case of the petitioner Union of India that the work under the contract was to start on 5th July, 1999 and to be completed within 18 months by 4th OMP No.572/2009 Page 1 of 12 January, 2001; however the respondent contractor was neither ready to, nor c...
Gurvender Singh Saini Vs School Management of Guru Hari Krishan Public ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
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.1. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition against the three respondents i.e. School Management of Guru Hari krishan Public School, Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management and Directorate of Education under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of termination order dated 05.02.2010 received on 27.04.2010. Further directions are sought by the petitioner to reinstate him with full back wages and consequential benefits.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Physical Education Teacher (PET) vide appointment letter dated 17.08.2000 and his services were confirmed on 20.11.2001. Since the petitioner was denied proper pay-scale as per Section 10 of Delhi School Education Act he filed a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 18084/2005 before this court for seeking direction to the sc...
ind-swift Limited Vs Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes 1. The Petitioner, being a pharmaceutical limited company, having its registered office in Chandigarh seeks the quashing of an order dated 26 th August 2008 passed by the Deputy Director General (MS), in compliance with a letter dated 7th August 2008 of the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS), Government of India permanently deregistering the Petitioner from participation in the business and supply of drugs to the DGHS. The Petitioner also challenges the show-cause notices dated 30th April 2007 and 18th December 2007 issued to it by the DGHS preceding the order of deregistration.2. According to the Petitioner, the DGHS (Medical Store Organization) [MSO], New Delhi adopted the tender document of the GNCTD for supply of drugs to its Directorate of Health Services. In terms of Clause 9 of the General Con...
Hazari Lal and anr Vs Financial Commissioner and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
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 petitioners by this writ petition impugn the order dated 14 th May, 2010 of the Financial Commissioner allowing the Revision Petitions of the respondent no.2 and thereby condoning the delay (stated to be of about seven and half years) on the part of the respondent no.2 in preferring the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner/Revenue Assistant against the order dated 11th February, 1983 and other orders of the Naib Tehsildar mutating the land in favour of the petitioners.2. It is relevant to set out the facts.3. One Shri Rattan Singh was the original Owner/Bhoomidhar of the land in question. It is the case of the respondent no.2 that the said Shri Rattan Singh had agreed to sell the said land to Shri Gopal Singh (father of the respondent no.2) and as a part of the said transaction also executed a wi...
Guru Nanak Khalsa College Vs National Council
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
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 petitioner by this writ petition impugns the order dated 18 th May, 2010 of the respondent no.1 National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25th September, 2009 of the respondent no.2 being the Northern Regional Committee (NRC) of NCTE closing the file for grant of recognition to the petitioner for conducting B.P.Ed. (Bachelor of Physical Education) course, on the ground that the petitioner had not submitted the building Plan of its Institute / College, duly approved by the competent authority. Though notice of this petition had not been issued till now but the petition has been listed earlier on three occasions and on all of which the counsel for the respondent has also appeared. In the circumstances and finding no need f...
Dilip Vs State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
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 following question has been referred to this Bench by a learned Single Judge of this court:-"Whether the percentage of THC in a sample of charas can by itself be determinative of the purity of the sample and whether such test is relevant or necessary for the purpose of considering the grant of bail or of awarding of sentence in terms of Section 21 read with Section 37 of the NDPS?"2. The above question was referred by the learned single Judge of this court by virtue of an order dated 01.05.2009. The background for such a reference is that in the course of hearing of the bail application, one of the points that arose for consideration was whether the percentage content of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in the quantity of charas recovered from the petitioner could actually be determinative of its purity. As...
Jeevan Engineering Works Vs Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
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 reported No in the Digest?ORDER.1. The objections filed by the petitioner vide I.A. No.4766/1997 under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, upon service of notice of filing of the award, are for consideration. Disputes arose between the parties out of a contract placed by the respondent on the petitioner for supply of six diesel dumpers. It was inter alia a term of the said contract that if the respondent was not satisfied, after trial of the two dumpers to be supplied initially, it could foreclose the order for the remaining four dumpers without any financial liability. The respondent, prior to the expiry of the period of trial of the first two dumpers supplied, called upon the petitioner to rectify certain defects found therein. However, simultaneously the petitioner was also called upon to supply the remaining four dumpe...
P.C. Sharma and Co Vs Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
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 objections (IA No.12005/1996) preferred by the respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA) under Section 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 upon being served with the notice of the filing of the award dated 30th April, 1996 in this Court are for consideration. The petitioner P.C. Sharma & Company has not preferred any objections to the award.2. The disputes arose between the parties out of the contract dated 14th September, 1982 awarded by the respondent DDA to the petitioner contractor for construction of 540 houses under the Self Financing Scheme. The estimated cost put to tender of the said works was of Rs.2,37,98,571/- and the work was to start on 24th September, 1982 and to be completed by 23rd September, 1983. The works were however completed on 31st January, 1986. On the arbitration clau...
Ram Kishan Sharma Vs Layak Ram Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
(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? Yes 1. Challenging the order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 20.02.2006, appellant (plaintiff in the suit) has filed this appeal.2. Succinctly, the case of the appellant is that he filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,51,458/- under the summary provision of Order 37 CPC alleging that on verbal request of the Respondent (defendant in the suit) he advanced a sum of Rs.75,000/- vide cheque No.684717 on 10.08.1998 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Banda Bahadur Marg, Delhi @ 20% per annum for a period of five years in the presence of two witnesses. Thereafter, he sent letters dated 9.06.2003, 07.07.2003 and 16.08.2003 demanding back the money advanced to the defendant. As defendant failed to pay the amount due from him, he filed the suit.3. On an application filed by the defendant, he was granted leave to defend...
- ‹ Prev
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- Next ›
- Last »