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.
Manjit Jaju. Vs Registrar of Companies N.C.T. of Delhi and Haryana
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
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. By the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C the petitioner has sought quashing of criminal complaint no.451 of 2002 and the proceedings emanating therefrom filed by Registrar of Companies against the petitioner for offences under Sections 63 and 628 of Companies Act, 1956 on the ground that the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C.2. It is submitted that the period of limitation prescribed for filing such complaint was three years from the date of alleged misstatement or false statement in the prospectus and the present complaint was filed after about 7 years. The prospectus was issued by the petitioner on 17th July, 1996 and the complaint was filed on 7th May, 2002.3. A perusal of Section 468 Cr.P.C would show that the period of limitation for taking cognizance of offence where the punishment pr...
Mrs. Jaya Bhandari and ors. Vs M/S Malhan Builders and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may Yes be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in the Digest?ORDER.1. By this appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the appellants seek setting aside of the judgment and decree dated 29.3.2005 passed by the learned ADJ whereby the suit for specific performance filed by the appellants for seeking execution of agreement dated 12.5.85 was dismissed.2. Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present appeal are that the appellants purchased the third floor of the property bearing Plot No.15, Siri Fort Road, New Delhi from the respondents nos. 1 to 5 i.e the builders of the said property vide agreement to sell dated 12.5.85 for a consideration amount of Rs. 4, 80,000. The respondents nos. 6 to 15 are the owners of the said property and entered into a collaboration agreement vide agreement dated 1.6.1983 by virtue of which the responde...
Lucas Indian Services Ltd. Vs Sanjay Kumar Agarwal.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may Yes be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in the Digest?ORDER.1. By this appeal filed under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2003 passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge whereby the suit for recovery of permanent and mandatory injunction filed by the appellant against the respondent was dismissed.2. Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present case are that the respondent was an employee in the appellant company and submitted his resignation letter on 3.10.99 and requested to be released from the employment w.e.f 1.1.2000. The appellant company in a letter dated 4.12.1999 informed the respondent that his services would be relieved subject to certain conditions specified therein among which one was the re-payment of loan advanced by the appella...
National Textile Corporation (Dpandr) Ltd. Vs Punjab National Bank and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may Yes be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in the Digest?ORDER.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to set aside the order dated 23.09.2006 passed by the court of Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer against the petitioner has been upheld.2. Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present petition are that the petitioner was a tenant of the respondent in respect of the property bearing Shop No.11, Punjab National Bank Building, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The petitioner was a habitual defaulter in payment of rent of the said premises and hence a legal notice dated 3.6.87 was served upon the petitioner terminating the said tenancy with effect from 30.6.87. Thereafter the Estate Officer served a show cause notice dated 23.7.198...
Sushil Kumar SharmA. Vs State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
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 praying inter alia for quashing of the order dated 1.6.2010 passed by the Deputy Secretary: Home(General), Government of NCT of Delhi, rejecting the request of the petitioner for parole for a period of three months on the ground of adverse police report and possibility of committing similar type of offence.2. The nominal roll dated 17.7.2010 forwarded by the Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail shows that the petitioner has been awarded death sentence under Sections 302/201/34 IPC and the period of sentence undergone by him as on 12.7.2010, is 14 years 11 months and 15 days.3. Counsel for the petitioner states that the need for the petitioner to seek parole has arisen on account of his mother's deteriorating health for which she is required to undergo cer...
Ms. Preeta Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through Its Commissioner ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
By Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A): The applicant, who had participated in a selection process initiated in the year 2007 for the post of Assistant Teacher/Teacher (Primary) under the MCD/GNCTD, is aggrieved at her non-appointment to the post. This is on the ground of the applicant having been found inadmissible in the OBC category. Further as per the averments in the OA this ineligibility is on account of late submission of the OBC Certificate by the applicant. As revealed through an application under the RTI Act, the non-selection is despite the applicant’s securing higher marks than the last selected candidate in the OBC category i.e 101 as against 86 out of 200 marks. The OA seeks a declaration of the denial of selection and appointment as illegal. Besides a direction to the respondents for offering appointment to the applicant to the post of Assistant Teacher/ Teacher (Primary) in OBC category with all consequential benefits has been prayed. On the prayer for interim relief, ...
Yogendra Pal Singh Vs. the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) : Applicant, who was working as TGT in Social Studies in Shaheed Udham Singh Co-Ed Secondary School, has claimed the following relief:- “(i)This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondent to re-employ the applicant for further 2 years in the post of a teacher at the respondent School in terms with the Govt. Notification F-30-3(Co-ord/2006/680/70) dated 29.1.2007 issued in this behalf. (ii)This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondent not to disallow the applicant from coming on duty after his retirement on 31.1.2010. (iii)To pay the applicant with his due salary at the time of disposal of this OA along with interest @ 15% p.a.”. 2. It is stated by the applicant that Government of NCT of Delhi, Directorate of Education, had issued Notification dated 29.1.2007 whereby the Lt. Governor was pleased to allow automatic reappointment of all retiring teachers subject to fitness and vigilance clearance till ...
Shri Shiv Sagar Naik Vs. Union of India Through Secretary and Another
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) : Applicant has sought a direction to the respondents to grant him non-functional scale of Rs.8000-13500 on notional basis w.e.f. 1.1.1996 to 2.10.2003 and on actual basis with effect from 3.10.2003 in terms of Notification dated 25.1.2006 and pay him the arrears. 2. It is submitted by the applicant that he appeared in the Departmental Examination conducted by Union Public Service Commission for Section Officer in the year 1989. He qualified and was appointed as Section Officer on 15.1.1991. Unfortunately, he was suspended w.e.f. 26.2.2001. DOPandT vide order dated 25.1.2006 had granted non-functional scale of Rs.8000-13500 to Section Officer of CSS w.e.f. 1.1.1996 (page 14) on completion of 4 years service in the grade subject to vigilance clearance. Applicant had completed 4 years of approved service in 1995 when no charge-sheet was filed against him till 25.1.2006, therefore, he gave reply on 13.8.2007 for granting the benefit of order dated 25.1.200...
Ms. Poonam Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Secretary and Another
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) : Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to consider her under OBC category for the Post Graduate Teacher (Primary) female. The Writ Petition was transferred to the Tribunal vide order dated 4.5.2010. It was thereafter numbered as TA 52/2010. 2. It is submitted by the petitioner that she belongs to OBC category. She had applied for her OBC certificate on 13.10.2007. In the meantime, respondents issued an advertisement on 16.10.2007 for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Primary) [hereinafter referred to as TGT (P)]. The last date for submitting the application was 30.10.2007 but 29.10.2007 being Karva Chauth and the dealing assistant being a female was not available as such certificate could not be issued to her. She was given the OBC certificate on 30.10.2007 and went to submit it whereupon she was told she should submit it along with other documents when notice would be given by the department. 3. She was s...
Anil Kumar Gupta Vs Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
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. FR 22(23) reads as under: "(23) Removal of anomaly by stepping up of pay of Senior on promotion drawing less pay than his junior.- (a) As a result of application of FR 22-C. (Now FR 22 (I)(a)(1)).-In order to remove the anomaly of a Government servant promoted or appointed to a higher post on or after 1.4.1961 drawing a lower rate of pay in that post than another Government servant junior to him in the lower grade and promoted or appointed subsequently to another identical post, it has been decided that in such cases the pay of the senior officer in the higher post should be stepped up to a figure equal to the pay as fixed for the junior officer in that higher post. The stepping up should be done with effect from the date of promotion or appointment of the junior officer and will be subject to the following co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »