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.
Hav. Suresh Kumar Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
1. The Original Application (O.A.) No. 47/2010 was filed on 27th January, 2010. The applicant has prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 18th August, 2009 and retain the service of the applicant till 05th January, 2012. He has also sought disability pension in case his disability is attributable or aggravated by service. And, again for grant of medical fitness certificate qua the medical category after constituting a proper Medical Board. 2. In the interim, he prayed that he may not be sent on discharge till the final adjudication of the O.A. Interim relief as prayed by the applicant was granted on 28th January, 2010, for the applicant to continue in service till the O.A. is finally adjudicated. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows. The applicant was enrolled as a Sepoy (Washerman) on 06th January, 1986. Due to his diligent work, he was promoted to the rank of Havildar. He was due to superannuate in the present rank on 31st January, 2010. However, he was granted extensi...
Avtar Singh Vs State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2010
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 petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for setting aside an order dated 15.04.2010 passed by the learned ASJ, Karkardooma Courts, in FIR No.105/2004 lodged against the petitioner and another accused under Section 308/506(2)/34 IPC with Police Station: Mandawali.2. By the aforesaid order, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.PC for recalling two prosecution witnesses, namely, PW1 Mukesh Kumar, the complainant and PW7 Rizwan, for cross- examination on his behalf was rejected. While passing the rejection order, the Court observed that the aforesaid witnesses had already been cross- examined on behalf of the accused persons by the counsel on 03.05.2009 and the application was silent as to the point left by the earlier coun...
Raj Singh Vs Bhup Singh Through Lr Surat Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2010
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.1. Raj Singh, the appellant had filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction against his cousin Bhup Singh. Plaintiff was the owner of house no.84, Nangloi Jat, Delhi. This house had come to his share by way of a family settlement in the year 1952. Defendant was the owner of property no.83 and 85 situated on either side of the lane facing the property of the plaintiff. In property no.83 a two storeyed house was constructed which did not have staircase. Defendant was using a wooden staircase for access to the first floor of the said building. Later on defendant had put up a temporary wooden plank as an over bridge to pass through his house. In 1968 defendant had constructed the ground floor and the first floor of house no.85. He also tried to construct pakka over bridge about 8 feet in width to ...
Harmeet Singh and ors. Vs State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2010
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 praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.931/2003 lodged by the respondent No.2, father of Ms. Devender Kaur, wife of petitioner No.1 under Section 498A/307/34 IPC, registered with Police Station: Tilak Nagar.2. It is stated in the petition that the marriage of petitioner No.1 was solemnised with Ms. Devender Kaur, daughter of respondent No.2 on 24.04.2003. There is no issue from out of the wedlock. It is the case of the petitioners that on 01.08.2003, the daughter of respondent No.2 consumed few capsules of the medicine, Spasmo Proxyvon and lost consciousness, whereafter petitioner No.1 rushed her to the hospital for treatment. Thereafter, respondent No.2 was informed about the incident. After a gap of three and half mon...
Rajdhani Co-operative Group Housing Socity Ltd. Vs the Presiding Offic ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2010
1. Whether the 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 the Digest? Yes 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Rajdhani Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. seeks quashing of the Award dated 31.5.2000 passed by the Arbitrator and the order dated 17.11.2000 passed by the Delhi Co-operative Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and upholding the Award dated 31.5.2000.2. The dispute in the present case is with regard to the denial of membership by the petitioner to the respondent No. 3 herein, namely, Sh. S.K. Sharma. Disputes were referred for arbitration between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 by the following order:-"Arb. No.05/JR-II/GH/94-95/1217 Dated: 16-1-95 In the matter of:Sh. S.K.SharmaE-1/219, Lajpat Nagar-INew Delhi..... CLAIMANTVsRajdhani Co-op. G/H Society Ltd.,94, Patparganj, Delhi ....
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Manoj Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2010
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?ORDER.1. Sh.Manoj Gupta, a physically handicapped person employed as an Assistant Engineer, a Group B post, sought promotion to the next post by relying upon the various office memorandums issued by the Government of India from time to time and as adopted and applied by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. He claimed reservation in the promotional post.2. The Tribunal was confronted with the response of the petitioner, that under the Corporation no reservation was provided in the promotion quota for any Group B posts and above.3. Relying upon a decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No.11818/2004 Union of India Thru G.M. Northern Railway Chairman, Railway Board v. S. Jaganmohan Singh, decided on 07.12.2007, the Tribunal has held in favour of the respondent.4. Since issues have been discussed thread bare in the decision in S....
Uoi Vs M.Shankar Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2010
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?ORDER. 1. While serving as an Upper Division Clerk in the Department of Science and Technology, the respondent was issued a charge memo dated 8.1.2001 listing 3 charges against him which are as under:-"Article 1 That the said Shri M.Shankar Kumar while serving as Upper Division Clerk in the Department of Science & Technology established a Non- Governmental Organisation named Sakthi Society for Rural and Urban Development (SSRUD), Registration No.109 of 1996 with its Head Office at Door No.1-38- 60, Kollurivari Street, Nazerpet, TENALI-522201 (Guntur District) and held the post of President (Elected) of the said Society without obtaining prior sanction of the Competent Authority. This is violative of provisions of Rule 15 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.Article 2 That the said Shri M.Shankar Kumar while serving as Upper Di...
Sh. Hardev Singh Sokhi Vs Ms. Varsha Sehgal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2010
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? YesORDER.1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 25 B (8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short as Act) praying for setting aside order dated 7.7.2010 passed by Additional Rent Controller (for short as Controller), Delhi, vide which applications under Section 25 B of the Act, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and under Section 151 of the Code, were dismissed and for recalling of eviction order dated 30.1.2010, passed by the Controller.2. The brief facts of this case are that respondent/landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) and 25 B of the Act, against petitioner/tenant, through his attorney. Notice under Section 25 B of the Act, was issued to the petitioner through his attorney which was duly served upon the attorney on 29.12.2009. No leave to contest applicati...
Smt. Saroj Devi Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2010
1. All the three cases involved identical question of law therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. For convenient disposal of all the three cases, the facts given in the case of Smt. Saroj Devi vs. Union of India and Others (O.A. No. 187/2009) are taken into consideration. Brief facts of the case are that applicants late husband Nk. Anil Kumar Lamba, No. 15125406A was enrolled in regular Army on 15.10.1995 and married to the applicant on 18.06.2000. The husband of the applicant died on 21.05.2002 and the widow i.e. applicant was granted ordinary family pension w.e.f. 22.05.2002. Thereafter, the applicant remarried on 23.03.2005 and accordingly the respondents was informed about the remarriage. Thereafter, the Bank stopped her pension. A legal notice was served by the applicant but without any result. Thereafter, applicant filed this Original Application before this Tribunal and prayed that the respondents may be directed to release the pension w.e.f. 22.05.2002 and wit...
Uttam Chand Chawla Vs Uoi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2010
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?ORDER.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.2.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing OA No.637/2005 as also the order dated 24.3.2006 dismissing RA No.52/2006 by which application, the petitioner sought review of the order dated 16.2.2006.2. We had heard the petitioner yesterday and since he could not make out what he was wanting to say, we had reserved the matter for order to be pronounced today.3. We went through the file and would note that the petitioner retired from service under Central Government on 31.1.1988 after rendering 39 years' service beginning from 1.6.1949.4. At the time when he superannuated from service, as a Section Officer in the Ministry of Agriculture, petitioner was drawing salary in the scale of pay Rs.2,000-3,500/- and after earning increments, his basic pa...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »