Delhi Court July 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 8 of about 331 results (0.022 seconds)Maj. Gen. V.K JaIn Versus Union of India Through Secretary and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Maj. Gen. V.K Jain filed W.P (C) No. 6466 of 2007 before the Delhi High Court for directing respondents 1 to 3 to promote him to the rank of Lieutenant General on the basis of the approved empanelment by the Appointment Committee of Cabinet (ACC) and to restore his inter se seniority over Lt. Gen. A.K Lamba (Respondent No.4), who was junior to him in the batch of 1969. The writ petition was received on transfer from Delhi High Court, in view of the provisions contained in Section 34 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007. 2. According to the petitioner, he was commissioned in Indian Army on 21.12.1969 and because of his excellent service records, he was granted substantive rank of Major General on 2.2.2004 while Respondent No.4 got his substantive rank on 3.2.2004. On 25.7.2006, the Promotion Board for 1969 was held, in which three officers, viz. Maj. Gen. Gautam Dutt, Maj. Gen. Harjot Sehgal and Maj. Gen. A.K Lamba were empanelled vide notification dated 28.12.2006. The petitioner w...
Tag this Judgment!Sep. Lal Bahadur Versus Union of India Through Secretary and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the fact that he was tried by a Summary Court Martial (SCM) on 21.9.2002 and dismissed from service for an offence of absenting himself without leave. The SCM was supposedly held in violation of various provisions of the Army Act and Rules. The sentence of dismissal is grossly disproportionate to the offence, especially considering the fact that he had put in 17 years of service and was entitled to pension for the rest of his life. The appellant pleads that the SCM proceedings dated 21.9.2002 be set aside and that he be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. 2. The appellant contends that he has served for 17 years in the Army as a Driver in various peace stations and operational areas in a loyal and dedicated manner. The situation leading to his Court Martial commenced when he was serving with his battalion i.e. 5003 ASC Bn. In Nagaland and was granted 20 days casual leave from 2.8.2001 to 22.8.2001. During this leave, on 20.8.2001, he ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Pt. Munshi Ram and Associates (P) Ltd Vs Dda Judgement Debtor
Court: Delhi
1.Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2.To be referred to Reporter or not? YES 3.Whether the judgment should be YES reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. The present reference arises from the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.04.2010 raising the issue of authority of an arbitral tribunal to award interest on interest i.e. compound interest from the date of the award under the Arbitration Act, 1940. ( the old Act' for short).2. Our task has been simplified on account of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. S.L.Arora & Company; 2010(2) Scale 541 where it has been held that an arbitral tribunal does not have the power to award such interest on interest under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( the new Act' for short) unless the contract so provides for it. The reference in the present case was, however, necessitated on account of the conflicting judicial views of learned Single Judges under...
Tag this Judgment!Amit JaIn and ors. Vs State
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,1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.268/2008 and the proceedings arising there from, lodged by the petitioner No.6 against her husband, the petitioner No.1, her two brothers-in-law, petitioners No.2 & 3, petitioner No.4, wife of petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.5, her mother-in-law, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered with PS Najafgarh.2. It is stated in the petition that the marriage of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.6 got solemnized on 23.1.2007, as per the hindu rites and customs and that there is no child born from out of the wedlock. Thereafter, some disputes arose between the parties, who started living separately. The petitioner No.6 lodged the aforesai...
Tag this Judgment!Ashland Licensing and Intellectual Property Llc Vs Savita Chemicals Li ...
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers YES may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? YES3. Whether the judgment should be YES reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. This order will dispose of a temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiff and a plea under Section 124 Trademarks Act, 1999 (hereafter called "the Act") by the defendant. The plaintiff shall hereafter be referred to as "Ashland".2. The plaintiff claims ownership of the trademark "ALL FLEET" and says that it is registered in favor of "Ashland Inc," worldwide since 1984. Ashland says that "ALL FLEET" was first registered in the United States of America (USA) in respect of motor oil in Class-4. It is stated that "ALL FLEET" has been registered in India since September 1994 as No. 639705. Apparently, the mark was owned by Ashland Inc, and according to the suit averments, was assigned to the plaintiff in this case in 2005. Simultaneously, Ashland claims to have entered into a license arrangem...
Tag this Judgment!Diesel Service Centre and ors. Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd
Court: Delhi
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. This is the second round of litigation arising out of a communication dated 11th August 2005 sent by the Respondent Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) to the Petitioner No. 1 informing it that its dealership stood terminated. Earlier the Petitioner had challenged the said letter by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 13298-13300 of 2005 in this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 10 th November 2005. While quashing the decision dated 11th August 2005, the Court held that the BPCL would be free to issue a fresh show cause notice to the Petitioner and after granting the Petitioner an opportunity of being heard, would pass a reasoned order. It was left open to the BPCL to take a decision whether to suspend business till the enquiry is completed. If an enquiry was initiated, it was dir...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Bansal and ors. Vs Gnctd 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? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes1. Seventeen Petitioners who are owners of plots in Block C-1, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi have joined in this petition seeking a direction to restrain the Public Works Department (PWD), Respondent No. 2 herein and the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) Respondent No. 1 herein from removing their marble shops located on the plots.2. Initially this Court was informed that the land on which the marble shops were located had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act). However, the proceedings of 26th May 1999 show that the Court was informed by the learned counsel for the Respondents that "the property which is the subject matter of the present petition has not been acquired but the predecessors of the petitioner gave an undertaking that they will keep the land vacant for use o...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Ram Nath (Deceased) Through Vs Smt. Laxmi Devi (Deceased)
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.Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against impugned order dated 28th May, 2010, vide which objections under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short as Code) filed by the petitioners were dismissed.2. Brief facts of this case are that Smt. Laxmi Devi (since deceased) and others, in 1971 filed an application under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code, seeking leave to sue as Forma Pauperis, against defendant Ram Nath (since deceased).3. Trial court, vide its order dated 17th July 1973, rejected that application with costs of Rs.50. Smt. Laxmi Devi and others were directed to deposit the requisite court fee by 17th August, 1973. Since, order dated 17th July, 1973, was not complied with, the trial court rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code.4. Smt. Laxmi Devi and...
Tag this Judgment!Uoi and anr. Vs Pankaj Agnihotri
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. The above captioned petitions are directed against the judgment and order dated 22.04.2009 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "CAT") whereby the review petition(s) filed by the petitioner, Union of India, against the earlier judgment and order dated 04.03.2008 passed by the CAT was dismissed. As a result the three respondents who had filed three petitions before the CAT succeeded in obtaining relief which they have prayed for which has resulted in the petitioners being required to give due weightage to the service rendered by the respondents as senior medical officers in the parent department for purposes of their eligibility for further promotion.2. The factual backdrop leading to the filing of the present petitions are that on 29.05.1986 Department of Personnel and Trai...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhvindra Singh Rathore and anr. Vs State and anr.
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,1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.PC seeking quashing of FIR No.326/2008 lodged by the respondent No.2/company against the petitioners under Sections 406/420/467/468/471/120B IPC, registered with Police Station: Darya Ganj, Distt. Central Delhi.2. In the complaint, the respondent No.2/complainant accused petitioner No.1 and his father, Dr.Himmat Singh Rathore of non-payment of dues payable by various parties for taking vehicles on hire-purchase the complainant, at the recommendation of the petitioner No.1 and his father. It is further alleged that the petitioners had projected themselves as financers to the hirers and received payments towards the hire installments in the name of the complainant/company for depositing the amounts in its account, which they fa...
Tag this Judgment!