Delhi Court August 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.
Mohit Kumar..Vs. Himalayan Institute Hospital Trust.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-2010
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may beallowed 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 has challenged an order dated 28th November 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (ADJ) allowing an application filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to permit an amendment in the plaint in OS No. 231 of 2003 (renumbered as OS No. 280 of 2005). The Petitioner has also challenged the subsequent order dated 26th February 2008 passed by the learned ADJ declining to recall the order dated 28th November 2007 as well as an order dated 28th February 2008 directing the framing of the issues. An order dated 3rd December 2007 taking on record the amended plaint and fixing the matter for admission/denial of the documents and for framing of issues has also been challenged.2. The above suit OS No. 231 of 2003 (renumbered as OS No. ...
Union of India and ors.Vs. H.L. Gulati.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-2010
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. The respondent, who was working as Senior Accounts Officer was issued a notice on 01.01.1998 calling upon him to submit his explanation to the notice. Reply furnished was found not satisfactory and hence a charge sheet was issued to him on 07.07.1998 under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules for a major penalty whereby following articles of charges were framed against him: "Article I That the said Shri H.L.Gulati, SAO while functioning as Sr. Accounts Officer-in-Charge M Section during the period 16.10.92 to 15.10.94 in the Office of CDA (HQRs), New Delhi, failed to discharge his duties effectively as provided for in Appendix I to Defence Accounts Department Office Manual Part I, which led to authorization of payment against 36 fraudulent claims as listed in Encl.I, to the tune of Rs. 42.24 lakhs approximately. Thus ...
M/S. V.L. Personal Care (P) Ltd.Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-2010
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? 1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing order dated 7th July, 2006 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner under Sections 409/467/468/471 IPC.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that a cheque issued by the complainant in favour of M/s. Vapra Exports Pvt. Ltd. was dishonoured. On this M/s. Vapra Exports Pvt. Ltd. filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Mumbai. The complainant i.e. present petitioner, however, filed a complaint at Police Station Hauz Khas through his sister concern M/s. Curls and Curves India Limited (CCIL) on 5th December, 2002. Another criminal complaint was filed by the petitioner directly at Police Station Hauz Khas on...
Janak Dulari Mehta, W/O Late Shri Ved Parkash Mehta,vs. Sh. Ramji Dass ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-2010
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? YesORDER1.By way of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, there is challenge to order dated 13th July, 2010, passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby application of petitioner under Order 22 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short as Code) etc. was dismissed.2. Brief facts are that, on 7th May, 1988 Sh. Ramji Dass (since deceased) predecessor-in-interest of respondent herein, filed a suit forSpecific Performance against present petitioner. 3. On 17th March, 2007, Sh. Ramji Dass died. Smt. Shanta Bhatia (respondent) filed an application for impleading her as legal representative, which was opposed by the petitioner. Vide order dated 31st July, 2008, trial court allowed the application making following conclusions;"(i) On perusal of the record, it is apparent that...
V.P.S. Chaudhary Vs. Shri Rakesh Mehta Chief Secretary and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-2010
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) : CP No. 665/2010 has been filed alleging disobedience of the order dated 19.11.2009. Perusal of the file shows that the said OA was disposed of at the admission stage itself without going into the merits of the case by directing the respondent No.2 to decide the appeal of the applicant annexed at page 56 of the OA. 2.Respondents have issued Memorandum dated 18.12.2009 wherein they have clarified that there is no provision under Rule 22 for filing appeal against the Memorandum issued under Rule 14 (4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. In any case it would be open to the applicant to submit his defence before the enquiry authority. 3.Counsel for the applicant argued vigorously that this amounts to contempt of court because definite direction was given by the Court to the respondents to decide the appeal, therefore, action should be taken against respondent No.2. 4.We have seen Rule 22 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1972 which reads as under:- “22.Orders against which n...
C.L. Verma Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, Government of Ind ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-2010
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) : The applicant has challenged Memorandum dated 12.11.2009 whereby de novo enquiry has been ordered against the applicant (page 14) and order dated 13.11.2009 whereby Shri Brahm Prakash, Sr. Assistant Director of Accounts, New Delhi has been appointed as enquiry authority to enquire into the charges levelled against the applicant (page 15). 2.It is submitted by the applicant that charge sheet dated 24.3.2008 was issued to the applicant with the following charges:- “ARTICLE - I Shri C.L. Verma while functioning as Dy. Manager (Finance) in Delhi Power Corporation Limited (DPCL), during the period from 03.10.02 to 13.07.05 was associated with the processing of case pertaining to filing of appeal before Hon ble High Court in the matter of M/s Metal Forging Pvt. Ltd. As per the legal opinion dated 31.05.04, the above said Shri C.L. Verma was required to process the matter expeditiously so as to ensure timely submission of calculations for filing of app...
C.L. Verma Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, Government of Ind ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-2010
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) : The applicant has challenged Memorandum dated 12.11.2009 whereby de novo enquiry has been ordered against the applicant (page 14) and order dated 13.11.2009 whereby Shri Brahm Prakash, Sr. Assistant Director of Accounts, New Delhi has been appointed as enquiry authority to enquire into the charges levelled against the applicant (page 15). 2.It is submitted by the applicant that charge sheet dated 24.3.2008 was issued to the applicant with the following charges:- ARTICLE - I Shri C.L. Verma while functioning as Dy. Manager (Finance) in Delhi Power Corporation Limited (DPCL), during the period from 03.10.02 to 13.07.05 was associated with the processing of case pertaining to filing of appeal before Hon ble High Court in the matter of M/s Metal Forging Pvt. Ltd. As per the legal opinion dated 31.05.04, the above said Shri C.L. Verma was required to process the matter expeditiously so as to ensure timely submission of calculations for filing of appeal in ...
Union of IndiA.Vs. Anil Puri.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2010
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? 1. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 19.9.2008 the Central Administrative Tribunal has allowed OA No.1915/2007 filed by the respondent and has quashed the charge sheet issued against the respondent on the ground that there has been delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings, secondly that it is a case where a decision has already been taken to punish the respondent and the proposed disciplinary proceedings are a mere ruse and lastly that the misdemeanour alleged against the respondent did not attract moral turpitude and since the respondent had retired from service penalty as contemplated by Rule 9 of the CCS Pension Rules 1972 could not be inflicted.2. It may be noted at the outset that the Inquiry W.P.(C) No.9493/2009 Page 1 of 16 Officer was yet to complete the inquiry when the proceedings got interdicte...
Sunil Kumar.Vs. State.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2010
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?ORDER1. In view of my decision in Baharat @ Popat v State Bail Appln. No.1943/2009, this petition is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed...
J.L. Goel and ors.Vs. Rajesh Kumar JaIn and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2010
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. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing a criminal complaint no.115/2007 under Section 109/120B/466/468 IPC and for setting aside the summoning order dated 30th November 2007passed by learned MM, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that petitioner no.6 Mrs. Anuradha Jain was married to respondent no.1 who is the complainant in complaint number 115 of 2007. A complaint lodged by her with CAW Cell against respondent no.1 and other family members of respondent no.1 culminated into an FIR No.244 of 1995 under Section 498A/406 read with Section 34 IPC and trial is going on in that case. The Crl.MC No.471/2009 J.L. Goel & Ors. v Rajesh Kumar Jain & Anr. Page 1 Of 8 respondent no.1 filed the impugned compla...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »