Delhi Court July 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 32 of about 331 results (0.024 seconds)Ramesh Saxena and Others Vs Chairman Managing Director, Itpo
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 34 petitioners employed in the canteen for the staff / employees of the respondent India Trade Promotion Organization (ITPO), by this writ petition seek a direction for being treated as the departmental employees of ITPO, with the same conditions of service as applicable to the other employees of ITPO and also claim an order restraining ITPO from taking any steps for retrenching the petitioners and/or for appointing a private contractor for running the said canteen. This court on 23rd July, 1993 issued notice of the writ petition and the application for interim relief to the ITPO. On the next date i.e., 3rd August, 1993 the counsel for ITPO made a statement that no precipitative action will be taken till the next date. The said order was continued. On 6th September, 1993 Rule was issued in the wri...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Brij Pal Singh Vs Presiding Officer 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 workman by this writ petition impugns the award dated 22nd July, 1996 of the Labour Court holding the departmental/domestic inquiry conducted prior to the termination of services of the petitioner workman by the respondent no.2 DTC to be valid and legal and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and further finding the punishment of dismissal from service meted out to the petitioner workman to be not disproportionate to the misconduct with which he was charged and found guilty and accordingly holding the petitioner workman to be not entitled to any relief.2. The petitioner workman was employed as a Driver with the respondent no.2 DTC since the year 1973. He was suspended on 7th February, 1984 and charge sheeted on 23rd February, 1984 for refusal to out shed the bus which h...
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Mehta and ors Vs Punjab and Sind Bank 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 three petitioners, by this writ petition seek quashing of the seniority list circulated vide letter dated 28th February, 2003 and restoration of the seniority list circulated vide letter dated 22nd December, 2001, for Electronic Data Processing (EDP) officer cadre of the respondent no.1 Bank. The petitioners further claim a mandamus directing the respondent no.1 Bank to declare the result of the promotion process held in the year 2002 for promotion from MMGS-II to MMGS- III in the EDP cadre and to complete the promotion process; consequently the relief of consideration of the petitioners for promotion to MMGS-III in the EDP cadre of the respondent no.1 Bank w.e.f. the year 2002 is also claimed. 2. As far as the relief qua seniority list is concerned, the officers of the respondent no.1 Bank are...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Shri Krishan Pal
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 workman Krishan Pal was employed with the DTC as a Conductor. He was found to have un authorizedly remained absent from duty for 22 days from 15th April, 1993 to 6th May, 1993 and was chargesheeted on 3rd June, 1993 for the same. The Inquiry Officer found the charge to have been established and the Disciplinary Authority of DTC, after issuing show cause notice to the workman on 18th November, 1993 meted out the punishment of removal of the workman from service. Owing to the pendency then of a general dispute between DTC and its employees, an application under Section 33(2)(b) came to be filed.2. The aforesaid application of the DTC under Section 33(2)(b) was dismissed vide order dated 7th August, 2000 by the Industrial Tribunal on the ground of DTC during the period of absence having marked the w...
Tag this Judgment!indraj (Deceased) Through Lrs and Ors, Vs Union of India 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 Yes reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. The appellants are aggrieved by a judgment and order dated 02.04.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge on a reference received by him under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), in respect of the land situated in the revenue estate of village Kilokari under Award No.1457 pronounced on 03.01.1963, pursuant to issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 13.11.1959, followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act, dated 17.08.1962.2. Under the aforesaid Award dated 03.01.1963, the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) divided the acquired land into two blocks, Block I & Block II. The market value of the acquired land, falling in Block I, i.e., land which was situated near the built up area, was determined @ Rs.4,500/- per bi...
Tag this Judgment!D.D.A. Vs Roshan Lal Malhotra
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? Yes 1. These two applications have been filed by the appellant department under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and condonation of delay in refiling the appeal.2. The impugned judgment and decree is dated 4.5.1992. The main file of the case was misplaced or was found missing from the department since 5.7.1980. A part of the file was sent to the Legal Department on 5.11.1992 for seeking opinion if any appeal was to be filed. The period of limitation for filing the appeal is 90 days from the date of the judgment and decree. The file was sent for legal opinion in about six months of the pronouncement of the judgment. Therefore, when the file was referred to legal department for opinion, the period of limitation for filing the appeal had already expired. It reached Depu...
Tag this Judgment!Maruti Suzuki India Ltd Vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax.....
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? YesORDER.1. The petitioner before this Court, formerly known as Maruti Udyog Limited (hereinafter referred to as Maruti'), is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of automobiles, besides trading in spares and components of automotive vehicles. The petitioner launched Maruti 800' Car in the year 1983 and has thereafter launched a number of other models, including Omni in the year 1984 and Esteem in the year 1994. The trade mark/logo M' is the registered trade mark of the petitioner-company.2. Since Maruti wanted a licence from Suzuki for its SH model and Suzuki had granted licence to it, for the manufacture and sale of certain other models of Suzuki four- wheel motor vehicles, Maruti, on 4th December, 1992, entered into a License Agreement, with Suzuki Motor Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Suzuki...
Tag this Judgment!National Airports Authority Vs Sudershan Kumar 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 petitioner employer by this writ petition impugns the order dated 9th March, 1992 of the Authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, on the application of 74 employees of the petitioner, all impleaded as respondents no.1 herein and holding the said employees to be entitled to overtime for the period July, 1990 to December, 1990 under Section 14 of the said Act and at the rates as prescribed in Rule 25 of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950, at double the rate of the wages being paid by the petitioner to the said employees. 2. The petitioner employer, before the said Authority contested the very applicability of the Act to itself. The Authority held the Act to be applicable to the petitioner employer.3. Section 2(e) of the said Act defines an "employer" as a person who employs one...
Tag this Judgment!Karnail Singh Vs Uoi 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 present writ petition was filed by the petitioner, on 22.01.2004 seeking various reliefs against the respondents. Initially six reliefs had been enumerated in the prayer clause of the petition. However, during the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner has confined the relief in the present petition to prayer (b) alone, which is for directions to the respondents to register a FIR against Shri Rajindar Singh, the husband of Ikvinder Kaur, the deceased daughter of the petitioner, his cousin and other relatives and for directions to the Commissioner of Police to take appropriate action against them in accordance with law.2. Counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 states that in the present case, a zero FIR was registered by the Delhi Police/respondent No.2, on 29.01.2004, pursuant to ...
Tag this Judgment!Tayal Paper Traders and ors. Vs Subhash Chand
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? Yes 1. This application has been filed by the appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking waiver of delay in refiling the appeal.2. Appellant No.2 has sought condonation of delay on the ground that appellant No.2 is an illiterate old lady and was suffering from number of diseases. She was busy in her own medical treatment as well as medical treatment of her sons, that one of her sons expired in the meantime and therefore, she could not contact and properly brief her lawyer.3. Respondent has contested this application primarily alleging that appeal itself is not maintainable, that memo of appeal is not even signed by her or her counsel and that memo of parties has been signed by Shri Subhash Kumar Advocate who is not counsel for appellant No.2, that even if it is not signed by appellant No.2, other ...
Tag this Judgment!