Delhi Court July 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 4 of about 331 results (0.021 seconds)L/Nk Bhawani Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Applicant by this petition has prayed that respondents no. 1 to 3 may be directed to quash the impugned order of Army Headquarters dated 30.01.2009 and respondents may also be directed to maintain earlier status quo prior to 1981 and released vacancies for promotion to higher cadres of Draughtsman Topography and Survey Topography vis a vis the lower cadre of Surveyor Sapper with immediate effect. 2. Applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 28.12.1995 as a Sapper in higher trade of Draughtsman Topo and he had an unblemished service record. There were various grades which were sought to be reduced as per recommendations of 6th Central Pay Commission and the Government merged all the grades by passing order dated 30.01.2009 which reads as under:- Integrated HQ of MoD (Army) Adjutant Generals Branch Addl Dte Gen MP/MP 8 (I of R) West Block III, R.K. Puram New Delhi 110066 A/20182/MP 8 (I of R) (a) 30 Jan 2009 (All Record Offices) RATIONLISATION OF TRADES: PERSONNEL BELOW OF...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Bhardwaj and ors.Vs. the State 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 judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes. 1.The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.assails an order of interim maintenance under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short Domestic Violence Act) passed by the learned MM on 16th January, 2008 and confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in appeal by order dated 29th February, 2008.2. The petitioner was a Non-Resident Indian, working in Luanda, Angola in Africa as a Manager. He came to India Crl.M.C.No. 491/2009 Sanjay Bhardwaj & Ors. v. The State & Anr. Page 1 of 6 taking leave from his job for marriage. Marriage between the petitioner and respondent no.2/wife was settled through matrimonial advertisement. The respondent wife was MA (English) and MBA. As per her bio-data sent before marriage, she was doing job with a Multinational Company. The marriage between th...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Parveen Kumar Vs Sh. Shailender Aggarwal and anr.
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 these two applications filed by defendants No. 1 and 2 respectively under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint.2. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.45 Lacs along with interest accrued thereon against the defendants contending inter alia that by virtue of a Lease Agreement, he was inducted as a tenant by defendant No.2 in the property No.14-A, Marble Arch Apartment, 9 Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs.20,000/- on 1st October, 1999. The Lease was extended for two years on the terms and conditions contained in the Lease Agreement dated 30th August, 2001.3. On 25th August 2005, plaintiff, on behest of defendant No. 2, entered into a verbal agreement for purchase...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Surender Vs Smt. Roshani 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? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER.1. By way of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged order dated 4.5.2010 passed by Civil Judge vide which application of petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short as Code) was dismissed, as well as order dated 5.6.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi vide which appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of Civil Judge was also dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-.2. Brief facts of this case are that petitioner herein, filed a suit against his widow mother and three real brothers stating that Sh. Gur Sahab, petitioners grand- father was the owner of property in question. He has raised Kachcha construction over it. Later on, petitioner got constructed the house from his own funds, being th...
Tag this Judgment!Principal Director of Audit and anr. Vs Bharti Parveen and ors.
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. 1. In March 2004 the respondent was working as Section Officer in the Review Section of Indian Audit & Accounts Department. Smt.Kamla, Audit Officer, was her Reporting Officer for the period 1.4.2004 to 22.8.2004 and Sh.Kuldeep Singh, Senior Audit Officer, was the reporting officer for the period from 23.8.2004 to 27.12.2004. Shri S.K. Gopalakrishnan, Deputy Director was the Reviewing Officer for said periods.2. It appears that the respondent No.1 was having problems with just about everybody in the office and for which a charge sheet was issued to her under rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 imputing her of the misconduct or misbehaviour. 3 articles of charge were alleged as under:- "ARTICLE-1That the said Ms.Bharti Parveen holding the post of Section Officer (Audit) in the office of the Principal Director of Audi...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs Ashok Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES 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.This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 58 days in filing the leave petition.For the reasons stated in the application delay is condoned. CRL.LP No.198/20101. This is a petition under Section 378(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code for leave to appeal against the judgment/order dated 2nd January, 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in the case FIR No.235/2003, under Section 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Gokal Puri acquitting the respondents Sanjeev Kumar, Rajeev Kumar, Ashok Kumar all sons of Vishambhar Dayal, Smt.Sharda Devi and Smt.Geeta Rani of the said offences.2. Brief facts to comprehend the case are that deceased Kavita got married on 20th October, 2003 with respondent-3 Ashok Kumar about 5 months prior to 17th June, 2003 when she consumed Aluminum Ph...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Ram Niwas
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?ORDER1. On 22.07.1997 a show cause notice was issued to the respondent alleging as under: "Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Central Establishment Department) Town Hall, Delhi No. HC (B)-III/CED(C)/97/17869 Dated 22.07.1997 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE Whereas Shri Ram Niwas S/o Shri Dharam Singh, D/W driver was engaged on 28th April, 1989 in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. AND Whereas while processing the matter relating to the regularization of service of the said Ram Niwas D/W driver, it was found that the said Shri Ram Niwas has deliberately & knowingly suppressed/concealed the facts, relating to his arrest in case No. 70/84 u/s 325/34 IPC, P.S. Najafgarh, Delhi and 31/92 u/s 279/338 IPC, P.S. Karol Bagh, Delhi in the column No. 11 of the Attestation Form.ANDWhereas the matter was referred to the Competent Authority and it ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax-iv Vs Givo Ltd.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the 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 the Digest?Yes1.This is an application for condonation of delay of 100 days in re- filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 100 days in re- filing the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, application stands disposed of.1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity "Act, 1961") challenging the order dated 19th June, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "ITAT") in ITA No. 3070/Del/2004, for the Assessment Year 1997- 1998.2. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned counsel for Revenue submitted that the ITAT had erred in law in deleting the addition of interest of Rs. 4,00,320/- on account of advance given to Mr. V.K. Chabra. He also submitted that ITAT had erroneously deleted Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of foreign traveling expenses.3. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Joginder Singh (456/Ne) Ex - Constable Vs Govt of Nct of Delhi and ors ...
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.1. Shri Joginder Singh S/o Shri Charanjeet Singh, the petitioner herein, had been working as Constable with Delhi Police. In 1996 an FIR bearing No. 355/1996 under Section 420/468/471 IPC was registered against him at Police Station Welcome, Delhi. The FIR was registered on a complaint made by one Ashwani Kumar, who alleged that the petitioner is not actually Joginder Singh and his actual name is Joginder Singh and that he changed his name after getting a duplicate copy of the matriculation certificate which had been issued in the name of Joginder Singh S/o Ranjeet Singh and that he had changed the name Ranjeet Singh by adding "Ch" (in Hindi) so as to make it Charanjeet Singh, his fathers name. On that basis after the receipt of a complaint lodged by one Ashwani Kumar a criminal prosecution was launched against t...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs Ravinder Chhabra and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES 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.This is an application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 3 1/2 months in filing the petition. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed. The delay in filing the petition is condoned.1. The respondents, namely, Mr. Ravinder Chhabra, Ms. Puja Chhabra, Mr. Shiv Kumar Anand and Ms. Lata Anand were charged for offences under Section 498A/304B/34 of IPC in FIR 15/2000, PS Patel Nagar and by impugned judgment and order dated 6th January, 2009, the respondents have been acquitted of the charges framed against them.2. The case as set up by the petitioner was that on 5th September, 1998 Puja @ Pallavi, daughter of Mr. Ram Lal was married to Mr. Ravinder Chhabra, respondent No. 1 as per Hindu Rites. After the marriage, the matrimonial life was not smooth as allegedly Puja's husband...
Tag this Judgment!