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.
S.C.Chugh Vs Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
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. Having lost the battle before the Central Administrative Tribunal when, vide impugned judgment and order dated 7.10.1998, the Tribunal dismissed OA No.1510/1994 filed by the petitioner; denying to him the claim of being treated as an employee of the Central Government hence denying a declaration that petitioner is entitled to be paid wages and emoluments as an employee of the Central Government as also pension; the petitioner tries his luck by fighting another round of litigation before this Court by and under the instant writ petition which is being disposed of by the present judgment.2. At the outset it may be noted that the instant writ petition challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 7.10.1998 was filed on 14.1.2004 i.e. after a delay of 5 years and 3 months.3. Rather than explain the delay and l...
Shell Brands International Ag and anr Vs Gagan Chanana and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers Yes. may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes.3. Whether the judgment should be Yes. reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. The present order will dispose of two applications one by the plaintiffs seeking temporary injunction and the second by the defendant under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, for stay of the proceedings.2. Briefly the facts are that the plaintiffs claim to be owners of the "SHELL" brand and several trademarks in conjunction with. It is pointed that the plaintiffs' group is engaged in wide-ranging business activities and best known for its retail service stations, oil and gas production and exploration on land and at seas. It is also claimed that approximately 3% of the world's oil and about 3.5% of the world's gas is produced by the "SHELL" group and that its quarterly unaudited financial result for 2006 was US$ 318845 million. The plaintiffs trace their presence in India to 1928 and have ...
Sh. Sheo Raj Vs Sh. Hans Raj and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
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.Present revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short as Code) challenging judgment dated 29th October, 2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi and orders dated 24th April, 2009, 5th May, 2009 and 20th May, 2009, passed by Civil Judge, Delhi.2. Petitioner herein, filed a suit for recovery against respondent in the year 1993.3. On 25th April, 2009 that suit was dismissed in default due to non- appearance of the petitioner and his counsel.4. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code for setting aside order dated 25th April, 2009. That application was also dismissed in default on 5th May, 2009. Again petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the Code for setting aside order dated 5th May, 2009. This applica...
State Bank of India Vs Sunrise Data Preparation Centre and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? (No)2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? (No)3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? (No) 1.The appellant bank is aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge in a suit filed by it under the provisions of Order XXXIV of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of ` 383591.20 along with interest thereon at the contractual rate of 17.5% per annum with quarterly interest from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization to the extent interest has been awarded only at the rate of 6% per annum.2. The appellant bank had filed the suit for recovery of ` 3,83, 591.20 against respondents nos. 1 and 2 herein as the principal borrowers and respondents nos. 3 and 4 as the guarantors. Respondent no. 3 while offering guarantee for the repayment of the financial facility awarded to the respondents nos. 1 and 2 for their business had created an equitabl...
Bano Bee Vs Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. Whether reporters of the local papers 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.In this public interest litigation, the petitioner invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has called in question the legal substantiality and tenability of the order dated 6 th July 2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police whereby he has, in exercise of powers conferred on him under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'the Code') read with Notification No. 11036/1/08-UTL dated 31.10.2008 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi passed an order prohibiting certain activities.2. It is urged in the petition that the Delhi Police has been issuing such prohibitory orders from time to time as a result of which the fundamental right to assemble peacefully under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution which include...
John Varghese Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. The present petition has been transferred from Honble Delhi High Court to this Tribunal on its formation. 2. Petitioner by this petition has prayed that the order of EME record dated 08.01.1998 may be set aside and he may be granted pension and other benefits including special pension entitled to him by counting his former service. 3. Petitioner was initially enrolled in the Indian Army in Armoured Corps on 13.07.1962 but he sought release from Armoured Corps and same was granted by the order dated 11.11.1964. Thereafter, he was again enrolled in the Corps of Electrical and Mechanical Engineers on 16.12.1964. He again sought voluntarily discharge and he was voluntarily discharged on 18.07.1977. Therefore, he had put in 12 years and 7 months service in EME and he had put in total 14 years and 11 months in the Army in two spells, first in Armoured Corps for 2 years, 3 months and 28 days and second in EME Corps in 12 years, 7 months and 3 days. Petitioner has filed this petition claim...
Rect. Satish Chandra Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. The present petition has been transferred from Honble Delhi High Court to this Tribunal on its formation. 2. Petitioner by this petition has prayed that a writ of certiorari be issued to quash the orders dated 27.09.2003, 25.05.2007 and 08.12.2007 and he may be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits including back wages with retrospective effects. 3. Brief facts which are necessary for the present petition are that petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 01.03.2002 as a Soldier in the Mahar Regiment. While undergoing basic military training, he sustained a stress fracture tibia (right) on 30.07.2002. He was hospitalised on 12.09.2002 and remained in hospital for 22 days i.e. upto 03.10.2002. He was granted 28 days sick leave from 04.10.2002 to 31.10.2002. Thereafter, he was hospitalized on 01.11.2002 and remained there for 13 days i.e. upto 13.11.2002. Again, he remained hospitalised for 42 days i.e. from 14.11.2002 to 25.12.2002. Thereafter, again on 08.01.2003 he wa...
Ram Karan Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. The present petition has been transferred from Honble Delhi High Court to this Tribunal on its formation. 2. Petitioner by this petition has prayed that by writ of certiorari Annexure P-14 may be quashed and respondents no.1 and 2 be directed to treat him in service and pay him all the back pay and allowances and other service benefits. 3. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of present petition are that petitioner enrolled in the Indian Army as a Sepoy on 20.02.1981 and with passage of time, he became Havildar but he was discharge vide order dated 08.06.1998 with effect from 01.12.1998 on account of low medical category. It is alleged that petitioner problems started when he filed some written complaints during Sainik Sammelan held on 31.08.1995 wherein he made grievances of various nature. The petitioner was sent by the Commanding Officer, Devlali to the military hospital, Kirkee, Pune and he reported there on 22.09.1995. He remained in the hospital upto 08.03.1996. H...