Delhi Court September 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 11 of about 113 results (0.024 seconds)Maj. Suresh Chandra Sharma Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Present case received on transfer from Honble Delhi High Court. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is true that Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Ajay Wahi (Civil Appeal No. 1002 of 2006) has held in view of the provision that a person who voluntarily retires from service is not entitled to disability pension. But subsequently, the Government has issued a Notification dated 29th September, 2009 for implementation of the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission which reads as under :- 29.09.2009 To The Chief of the Army Staff The Chief of the Naval Staff, The Chief of the Air Staff, Subject : Implementation of Government decision on the recommendation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission Revision of provisions regulating Pensionary Awards relating to disability pension/war injury pension etc. for the Armed Forces Officers and Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBOR) voluntary Retire/discharge on own account of disability on or after 01.01.2006...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwati Devi, New Delhi Vs. Max Heard and Sascular Institute and Othe ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
M.L. Sahni, Member (Judicial), J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the Interim order dated 21.04.2010 in complaint case no. 268/2008 whereby the application of the OP/respondent was allowed for referring the questions regarding medical negligence on the part of the OP/respondent to a Board of Doctors of any Government Hospital for medical opinion in view of law laid down in case of Martin F. DSouza Vs Mohd. Isfhaq AIR 2009 SC 2049. 2. The contention of the appellant/complainant before the District Forum was that the above said judgment does not pertain to pending cases but is applicable only to new cases where the complaint have been filed on the ground of medical negligence and the complaint would be admitted only after obtaining the experts report of medical faculty. 3. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellant/complainant and we find no merit in this contention especially in view of latest judgment of the Honble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 1385 of 200...
Tag this Judgment!PumpkIn Studio Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Sh. Hardeep Gill.Vs. S.H ...
Court: Delhi
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.Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 8.7.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi, vide which application of petitioner under Order 14 Rule 1 (5) of Code of Civil Procedure (for short as Code) for framing of issues, was dismissed with costs of Rs.1,000/-.2. Brief facts of this case are that, on 10.8.2009 respondent (plaintiff in the trial court) filed a suit for possession, recovery of Rs.4,00,000/- towards arrears of rent and Rs.1.5 lacs towards damages against present petitioner (defendant in the trial court).3. On 5.11.2009, petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, which was dismissed by the trial court. 4. Later on, petitioner filed his written statement along with counter claim, notice of which was iss...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Shankar Shukla and ors.Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
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?ORDER1. Vide order dated 22.1.2010 OA No.2145/2009 filed by the writ petitioners has been dismissed.2. Briefly stated, there exist two different cadres under the Indian Railways; those forming the secretarial staff and those working as stenographers. The secretarial staff is governed by the Railway Board Secretariat Service Rules 1969 (herein after referred to as the RBSS Rules). The stenographers are governed by the Railway Board Secretariat Stenographers Service Rules 1971 (herein after referred to as the RBSSS Rules).3. The origin of the dispute is Rule 8(3) of the RBSS Rules which reads as under:-"8(3) Vacancies in Grade I shall be filled by promotion of permanent officers of the Section Officers Grade who have rendered not less than eight years approved service in that grade and of permanent officers of the Grade ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and ors.Vs. A.K.Verma .
Court: Delhi
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. With a view to provide an alternative and reliable transport system in the State of Jammu and Kashmir in the year 2002 Government of India planned a 345 km long railway line. The line was to join the Kashmir Valley with the Indian Railways network. The project known as "Jammu-Udhampur- Srinagar-Baramulla Rail Link Project" (hereinafter referred to as "JUSBRL Project") is of strategic importance and is intended to provide quick access within the State of Jammu and Kashmir and serve as an alternative to road transport on National Highway 1A on which the traffic is frequently disrupted by landslides and snow avalanches.2. For a speedy execution of the project, the task of survey, field investigations, design and construction was entrusted to three public sector units; namely, Konkan Railway Corporation Limited (hereina...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Ashish Nandy.Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Delhi
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. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of F.I.R. bearing I-CR No.600 of 2008 registered by Satellite Police Station, Sub-District Satellite, District Ahmedabad (Rural) under Sections 153-A and 153-B IPC.2. The petitioner has claimed that he was an eminent academician of international repute. He wrote an article in Delhi which was published on 8th January, 2008 in National edition of Times of India as well as in local editions of Times of India, a daily newspaper. His article was a critical analysis of outcome of Gujarat Legislative Election held in December, 2007 and he had commented on a sad and unfortunate polarization amongst people of Gujarat. Respondent No.2, Sh. V.K. Saxena, President of National Council for Civil Liberties having office at Ahmedabad served a notice on petit...
Tag this Judgment!Sharad Kumar Pandey.Vs. Mamta Pandey.
Court: Delhi
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 and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing/ setting aside the order and judgment dated 3rd November 2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner against an order passed by learned Magistrate taking cognizance of a complaint under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, "the Act").2. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the court of Magistrate and before the court of learned ASJ was that the marriage between the parties was solemnized in Lucknow on 22nd February 2004. Before marriage, the complainant/ respondent was living in Lucknow at her parental house and was doing Ph.D. res...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Madan Lal (Since Deceased) A. Smt. Ramrameshwari Devi, W/O Sh. Mad ...
Court: Delhi
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.Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by petitioners challenging order dated 9th July, 2010 passed by Civil Judge, Delhi, vide which application of petitioners under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short as Code) for treating issue no. 4 as preliminary issue, was dismissed with costs of Rs.2,000/-.2. Present petitioners belong to that category of litigants whose only motive is to create obstacles during the course of trial and not to let the trial conclude. Application after application are being filed by the petitioners at every stage, even though orders of the trial court are based on sound reasoning. Moreover, petitioners have tried to mislead this court also by filing wrong synopsis and incorrect dates of events. 3. The purpose of filing of br...
Tag this Judgment!Narender Singh Arora .Vs. State (Govt. of Nct Delhi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
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 petition under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C has been preferred by the revision petitioner for setting aside the judgment and order dated 22 nd March, 2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.104 of 2001 whereby the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused persons of charge under Section 498A/304B 302 read with Section 34 IPC.2. Brief facts relevant for purpose of deciding this revision petition are that the petitioner's daughter Mrs. Arveen was married to Mr. Paramjit Singh Rana (respondent no.2) in 1984. She delivered a child on 26th August, 1987. She committed suicide by hanging herself from ceiling fan with the help of a chunni on 23rd November 1988. A case under Section 302/498A/304B read with Section 34 IPC was registered against the husband, father in ...
Tag this Judgment!Amit Khanna,and ors.Vs. Priyanka Khanna and ors.
Court: Delhi
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. By these petitions petitioners, husband and wife have assailed order dated 26th October, 2009, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) in appeal. Ms Priyanka Khanna had moved an application before learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and also made an interim application for residence, protection and maintenance. Learned MM considered the income of the husband for the financial years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 and found that annual gross income of the husband for the latest financial year i.e. 2007-08 was ` 3,47,550/- (before deduction of tax). She considered that gross monthly income of the husband was between ` 28,000/- and ` 29,000/-. She awarded monthly maintenance of ` 10,000/- to the wife. Apart from that, she also a...
Tag this Judgment!