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.
Mohd. Taqi Vs State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
ORDER1. After some hearing learned counsel for the appellants have restricted their submissions to the quantum of sentence. The two appellants have been convicted under Sections 393 and 394 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC). The appellant, Mohd. Noor was caught at the spot on 4th November, 2004 at about 8.30 a.m. while he along with other co-accused trying to rob PW-1, Mr. Vinod Maan, the complainant, who was going in a rickshaw. Mohd. Noor had shown knife to PW-1, Mr. Vinod Maan and tried to snatch the gold chain, which he was wearing. PW-1, Mr. Vinod Maan had stated that he raised alarm. In the meanwhile a motorcyclist came and the two appellants ran away. The motorcyclist apprehended Mohd. Noor but the other accused Mohd. Taqi managed to run away. The motorcyclist PW-4, ASI Mukut Lal has corroborated and reiterated the facts stated by PW-1, Mr. Vinod Maan. Police officers PW-2, Constable Lokender Singh and PW-9, SI Kirpal have also supported the prosecution case ...
Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
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. An order dated 11th August 1996 passed by the Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals, Drug Prices Equalisation Account (DPEA) Cell, Government of India, Respondent No.1 herein, directing the Petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 29,09,141 under Para 7(2)(a) of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1979 (DPCO, 1979) read with para 17(1)(a)(i) thereof on account of overcharging of the prices of Penivoral Plain Tablets and Penivoral Forte Tablets during the period from 12th March 1981 to 30th April 1987 into the DPEA together with interest of Rs. 48,26,047.99 under Section 7A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (ECA) within a period of 30 days, has been challenged by the Petitioner in this writ petition. Factual Background2. The Petitioner company is engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical formulations inc...
Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors. Vs R.N. Bhat
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No ORDER. These are applications for condonation of delay in filing and re- filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the applications, delay in filing and re- filing the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, applications stand disposed of. 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 12th April, 2010 passed in WP(C) 3009/1998 by virtue of which the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein and quashed the penalty of reduction by two steps of respondent's basic salary imposed by the Appellant's disciplinary authority.2. The relevant facts of this case are that the respondent was charged with having falsely claimed Rs. 5,600/- as LTC expenses for visiting Pune and back to Delhi between 31st July, 1993 and 8th August, 1993. The basis o...
Smt. Bhagwati Vs Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
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 various pay commissions have the mandate to recommend revision in pay scales to various posts under the Government of India and in respect of workmen the Pay Commissioner recommends revision of pay scales not in respect of individual trades but by classifying the workmen into three categories; unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled workmen. Thereafter it is left to the departmental heads to make applicable the pay scales depending upon the nature of trade in which a workman is engaged.2. An issue cropped up when tailors under the Ministry of Defence deployed at different Army Units and engaged in the work of tailoring raised an issue of being categorized as semi-skilled workmen, claiming that the trade in which they were engaged required special skill. They contrasted their work with rope makers, carpenters a...
Uoi Thr. Secy M/O Defence Vs Manjeet Singh.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
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. Minor penalty of withholding next increment of pay for a period of one year has been inflicted upon the respondent by the disciplinary authority. The Appellate Authority has agreed with the penalty levied. Vide impugned order dated 06.07.2006, allowing O.A.No.1335/2005, the Tribunal has set aside the penalty on the ground that Rule 14(18) of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 was not followed, in that since the charged officer did not examine himself in defence, the circumstance appearing against him were to be put to him by the inquiry officer. Additionally, finding fault, the Tribunal has held that the report of Station Security Officer relied upon by the inquiry officer was not permissible for the reason the Station Security Officer had not been examined as a witness.2. A stitch in time saves nine, is the adage whic...
ishwar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) : Applicant has challenged order dated 11.5.2004 (page 21) whereby punishment of reduction of pay by six steps from Rs.5,250/- to Rs.4875/- in the same scale of Rs.4500-7000 for a period of three years with cumulative effect has been imposed on the applicant. Order dated 6.10.2006 (page 23) whereby appeal was rejected and order dated 20.7.2007 (page 23) whereby the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority was reduced to reduction in pay by six steps in same time scale for two years with cumulative effect after holding that charge No.1 was not proved. 2. It is stated by the applicant that a charge sheet was issued to him on 25.9.2002 with the following allegations:- “That the said Shri Ishwar Singh, REC-II/IRCA/NDLS while working as such on date 22.4.2002 and manning counter No.139 was subjected to vigilance check at about 08.50 hrs. and was found to have been indulged in the following irregularities: 1. That Shri Ishwar Singh produced Rs....
Arun Kumar Vs. Union of India Through the General Manager, Northern Ra ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Applicant has challenged orders dated 5.10.2009 (page 23) whereby his revision has been rejected, 23.01.2009 (page 21) whereby appellate authority has reduced the penalty and 04.02.2008 (page 16) whereby penalty was imposed on the applicant by the disciplinary authority. It is submitted by the applicant that memorandum dated 22.12.95 was served on the applicant with the following allegations:- Articles of Charge i)On 24.11.1994/25.11.95 Shri Arun Kumar Material Clerk while working as such committed serious irregularity so much so that he misappropriated money value books (80 Nos.) by giving 520 PW bill books as against 600 books for onward supply to SM/Delhi and misappropriated 80 Nos. books with the connivance of Sh. Nathu Lal Meena, DKSP M. Value Book, Shri Ram Sunder Verma, Sh. Ram Asrey and Sh. Santu, Packer. ii)He has also failed to obtain the signature of Sh. Nathu Lal Meena, DSKP in token of correct supply of books demanded by him. By the above ac...
Trilok Chand Vs State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
1. Whether 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 Digest? Yes ORDER.1. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 30th November 2009 and Order on Sentence dated 3rd December 2009, whereby the appellant Trilok Chand was convicted under Section 302 and 498-A of IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs 15,000/- or to undergo R.I. for six months in default under section 302 and was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs 5000/- or to undergo R.I. for six months in default under Section 498-A IPC. The appellants Roshan Lal, Premwati and Bhim were convicted under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years each and to pay fine of Rs 10,000/- each or to undergo R.I. for six months each in default under Section 304-B of IPC and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Sangeeta Bansal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
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. The question posed for our consideration is, "whether, for the same misdeamnor after revocation of a suspension order, passing a second suspension order is permissible or not?". Our answer to this question is in affirmative in the given facts of this case. We find that the second suspension order dated 29.02.2008 was validly passed. We say so on the strength of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and Ors. v. Sanjiv Rajan, JT1993(2)SC550, and a judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi through its Chief Secretary and Deputy Commissioner v. Mrs. Beena Mehra, 155 (2008) DLT 583.2. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that the respondent joined the petitioner as ADC/DC, Land and Estate Departme...
Uoi Vs Phool Dev Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
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. On 17.06.1982, the respondent was employed by Central Public Works Department (hereinafter referred to as "CPWD") as a khalasi on a daily wage basis.2. In the year 1983, various persons who were employed by CPWD on a daily wage basis and were working in the said capacity since several years filed writ petition(s) under Article 32 of Constitution of India before the Supreme Court praying that they should be paid same wages as were paid to permanent/regular employees doing identical work.3. Applying the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work", vide decision reported as Surinder Singh v Engineer-in-Chief, C.P.W.D. (1986) 1 SCC 639 the Supreme Court allowed the writ petition(s). The relevant observations made by the Court are as under:-" .The Central Government like all organs of the State is committed to the Direc...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »