Delhi Court July 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 31 of about 331 results (0.019 seconds)Sh. A. Sundara Rajan Vs Govt. of Nct of Delhi 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 the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes.ORDER.1. The petitioner, earlier employed as a Post Graduate Teacher in the respondent no.2 school, seeks a declaration qua public notice dated 14th August, 2004 issued by the respondent no.1 Directorate of Education (DOE) and owing whereto the respondent no.2 school terminated the services of the petitioner; the petitioner also seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the order of his termination and a writ of mandamus seeking his reinstatement. It is not in dispute that the petitioner prior to the termination had been teaching Mathematics in the respondent no.2 school for 18 years; the "minimum qualification" required under The Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the Rules framed thereunder and so prescribed by the DOE for the said post is M.A./ M.Sc. with B.Ed.; the petitioner does not have the qualificat...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs the Presiding Officer, Cgit and anr .
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may yes be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported yes in the Digest?ORDER.1. The petitioner employer impugns the award dated 29th January, 1998 of the Industrial Tribunal holding the termination of services of the respondent no.2 workman to be bad, illegal, unjustified and unfair and directing reinstatement of the respondent no.2 workman with continuity of service, full back wages and all other consequential benefits. This Court vide ex-parte order dated 6th October, 1998 issued Rule in the writ petition and stayed the operation of the award. The respondent no.2 workman applied under Section 17B of the ID Act. The said application was allowed vide order dated 29th July, 2002 and the interim order confirmed till the disposal of the writ petition. Subsequently, on application of the respondent no.2 workman, the order dated 29th July, 2002 under Section 17B of the ID Act was m...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Shanti Swaroop Krishan Lal and Co Vs Sh.Badri Prashad Sharma
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)CM No.11321/2010( u/S 151 CPC for exemption) Allowed subject to just exceptions.1. This is a second appeal preferred against the order/judgment passed by learned Additional District Judge who vide his order dated 22.12.2008 had endorsed the finding of the learned Civil Judge dated 13.10.2008 dismissing the suit of the appellant.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance seeking a direction against the respondent/defendant to perform his part of the contract in terms of an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney and Affidavit dated 10.11.1995 whereby the defendant had agreed to sell two of his properties bearing no.H-1592 and H-1593, J.J.Colony, Jahagirpuri in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff and the defendant had business dealin...
Tag this Judgment!Shri S.P. Arora Vs Syndicate Bank 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 by this writ petition seeks quashing of the order dated 15th May, 1999 of the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent Bank imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner and the order dated 19th August, 1999 of the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal there against. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the order dated 1st June, 1998 initiating the departmental inquiry against him as well as of the report dated 21st January, 1999 of the Inquiring Authority. 2. The petitioner was charged with, while functioning as Sub Manager in the Asaf Ali Road Branch of the respondent Bank during the period 20th June, 1991 and 11th May, 1994, failing to ensure that the Savings Bank balances are extracted periodically and tallied up to date and failing to ensure that while transf...
Tag this Judgment!The Gramophone Company of India Ltd Vs Super Cassette Industries Ltd.
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? : Yes 1. By this order, I propose to dispose off I.A No. 2382/2005 in C.S.(OS) No. 399/2005 and I.A. No. 7050/1999 in C.S.(OS) No. 1625/1999. Since the parties and the issues involved in the interim applications and the two suits are common, these are being disposed off by a common order.FACTS IN BRIEF2. The Plaintiff has filed C.S.(OS) No. 1625 of 1999 to, inter alia, seek a permanent injunction against the Defendant Company from issuing any sound recording which embodies the works (literary and musical works), in which the copyright is owned by the Plaintiff herein. The Plaintiff has also sought an injunction restraining the Defendant from launching sound recordings which are remixed versions of the sound recordings in which the Plaintiff owns copyright. For the sake of clarity the sound recordings of th...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Sharma and ors. Vs the Directorate of Education and anr
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 three petitioners, being the employees of the respondent no.2 Vaishali International Public School, a recognized unaided private school within the meaning of The Delhi School Education Act, 1973, by this writ petition seek a declaration that the letters dated 2nd / 3rd March, 1998 submitted by them, of resignation from the respondent no.2 school, are void and inconsequential and a mandamus directing the respondent no.2 school to treat the petitioners to be in continuous service and entitled to protection of pay and all other benefits. The petitioners claim that during March, 1998 the Chairman of the respondent no.2 school told them that the school would be shut down by 31st March, 1998 and they would be relocated in other branches of the school; on such representation/assurance, their signature...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Radhey Lal Pradeep Vs Sh. Shyam Lal 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 employer by this writ petition impugns the award dated 5th November, 1999 of the Labour Court on the following reference:"Whether the services of Sh. Shyam Lal have been terminated illegally and / or unjustifiably and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"The Labour Court observed that though the industrial dispute was raised by the respondent no.1 workman after 20 years of his alleged removal, but held that, since no limitation is prescribed for raising a dispute and further since there was satisfactory explanation for the delay in raising the dispute, the reference could not be decided against the respondent no.1 workman on that ground. The Labour court further held that the petitioner employer had failed to prove that the respondent w...
Tag this Judgment!Devinder Vs the Institute for the Physically Handicapped 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 seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 The Institute for the Physically Handicapped to reinstate him as a casual labourer with all consequential benefits and back wages and further to confer on the petitioner, the status of a temporary workman in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated 10th September, 1993 of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel and a further direction for considering him for absorption as a regular employee of the respondent Institute. It is the case of the petitioner that he has worked as a casual labourer in the respondent Institute for a period of about two years continuously without any sort of technical break at all and is entitled to the benefit of the Office Memorandum aforesaid. The petitioner filed this writ W petition in the yea...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of IndiA. Vs Sh. C.P. Kanak and anr.
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 petitioner Bank by this writ petition impugns the award dated 23rd February, 1987 of the Industrial Tribunal, though holding the disciplinary proceedings held prior to the dismissal of the respondent no.1 workman to be fair and proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and though also holding the respondent no.1 workman guilty of temporary embezzlement, as also found by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner Bank, but holding the punishment of termination of service by way of discharge or dismissal to be harsh and quashing the same and directing the petitioner Bank to reinstate the respondent no.1 workman with continuity of service but without any back wages.2. The respondent no.1 workman joined the employment of the petitioner Bank as a Clerk...
Tag this Judgment!Hukum Chand Vs Shakuntla @ Sheela
Court: Delhi
(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? Yes1. Vide this order I shall dispose of the applications filed by legal representative of Bhulan Singh, deceased appellant for restoration of the appeal and for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration of appeal.2. Hukum Chand, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 04.08.1987. During the pendency of the appeal, he died on 14.11.1991. After his death, Bhulan Singh being his son and legal representative was substituted as appellant on 10.02.1992.3. Appeal came up for final hearing on 27th November, 2003. Since none was present on that day, the appeal was dismissed in default on the ground of non prosecution. This application has been filed by Bhulan Singh on 19th November, 2007 i.e. after about four...
Tag this Judgment!