Delhi Court September 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 5 of about 113 results (0.020 seconds)Parveen Kumar Vs Uoi and anr.
Court: Delhi
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? 1.This appeal was filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.7.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi enhancing the compensation to be awarded to the appellant whose land in village Sahibabad Daulatpur was acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector had awarded compensation @ Rs. 96,875/- per bigha and upon the reference being made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act at the instance of the appellant herein the reference Court enhanced the compensation of Rs. 51,000/- per bigha. The appellant, however, was still not satisfied and so he preferred the present appeal.2. The only point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the Reference Court has awarded the compensation to the appellant in terms of the Government's policy contained in Ex. P1 but that policy to the extent i...
Tag this Judgment!Uoi and anr. Vs Chhedi Lal.
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?ORDER.1. We regret with an apology at the outset of not being able to detect a sound jurisprudence norm underlying the two rival destinations reached in the various reported decisions; but find a factual basis for the distinction.2. There exists a line of decisions and the lead decision which we may refer to, following a series of decisions, is the decision of the Supreme Court reported as Union of India & Ors. v. K.V.Jankiraman & Ors. (1991) 4 SCC 109. These decisions hold that the normal rule of 'no work no pay' is not applicable to cases where an employee was willing to work but is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. All these decisions have a common factual background. The common factual background is that the government servant was placed under suspension pending inquiry. Entitlement for pr...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Mehra Vs. Sultan Chand and Sons (Publisher) and Others.
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral): 1. In a complaint filed by the appellant-complainant against the OPs, the District Forum held OP No. 1 deficient in selling the text-books in Inorganic Chemistry by Sh. P.L. Soni, vide receipt dated 29.7.2006 ordered the OP No. 1 to refund purchase amount of Rs. 315 and to pay the complainant Rs. 1,000 as compensation and Rs. 500 the litigations costs. 2. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation and the costs the appellant-complainant has come in appeal before this Commission. We have heard the appellant in person at preliminary stage of admission. 3. The sole contention of the appellant in this appeal is that he has not been satisfactorily compensated. On query what should be the proper amount, his answer is that he prayed compensation of Rs. 20,000, which the District Forum has not granted. 4. There is no rule for granting compensation for the harassment and mental agony, and the Court has to determine, in each case the amount of compensation a...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Shankar Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Another.
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral): 1. The short facts of the case are that the complainant, an occupant of Jhuggi No. A-488, Ambedkar Camp, Nehru Place, New Delhi situated on the land of OP respondent, on receipt of a letter of information dated 21.4.2004 from the OP that he can file a proposal-cum-request for allotment of an alternate plot after fulfilling the conditions contained therein, the complainant deposited Rs. 14,000 and applied for allotment of a corner plot before the OP Delhi Development Authority. The OP did not allot the plot. He, therefore, filed a complaint before District Forum with a prayer that the OP be directed to allot a plot in his favour and to give possession and to pay him a compensation of Rs. 7,43,000. Proceedings were ex parte against the OP before the District Forum. The District Forum on consideration of evidence of the complainant found that the OP DDA had made no allotment in favour of the complainant, and mere completion of the formalities for making...
Tag this Judgment!Cpl Ashit Kumar Mishra (No.791365k) Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Petitioner by this Writ Petition has challenged the Order dated 5.7.2010 and sought the directions to respondent no.1 to 3 to grant NOC and discharge the applicant from the Indian Air Force to enable the petitioner to join as a Trade Tax Officer with UP Trade Tax Department. 2. The applicant joined the Indian Air Force on 19th June, 1998 as Airman and since then he is working with the Respondent. The applicants educational qualification was 10+2 at the joining of Indian Air Force. In 2002, the applicant completed his graduation from Indira Gandhi National Open University after taking necessary permission from the Indian Air Force. 3. On 19.3.2007, the applicant applied for UP State Combined State/Upper Subordinate Services(Preliminary) Examination, 2007 through proper channel which was forwarded by the Respondent No.1 to 3. On 5.3.2009, the applicant qualified the Preliminary Examination of UP State Combined State /Upper Subordinate Services(Preliminary) Examination, 2007 issued b...
Tag this Judgment!D.K.Pandey Vs State 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? 1. By this common order, I shall dispose of the above two petitions preferred by the petitioner against the summoning order dated 26 th February, 2009 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate in two complaints made by two complainants against the petitioner.2. The complainants filed a complaint each under Section 499,500 IPC against the petitioner since the petitioner had issued a Circular to its all agents and customers. The circular reads as under:- "Date: 12.11.2008CIRCULAR TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN This is to inform that M/s Gupta Brothers/ M/s R.P. Gupta & Sons, 3676, Gali Shahtara, G.B. Road, Delhi-110 006 are Not our Authorized Dealer. It has come to our notice that "MIRANDA" make items are being sold at Higher Discounts for which we will not be responsible for Genuineness & Quality complaint of material.Thanks...
Tag this Judgment!Shell Brands International Ag. and anr. Vs Mr.Pradeep JaIn .
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. The appellants (original plaintiffs) filed a suit against the respondent (original defendant) for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, passing off, damages, delivery up, etc. in respect of their trademark SHELL. Summons were issued in the suit and notice on the interim application for injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure (the said Code for short) giving limited ad interim ex parte relief to the appellants. The notices in both the suit and the application were made returnable before the Joint Registrar. The respondent entered appearance and pleadings were completed both in the suit and the application. None of the parties filed any original documents for purposes of admission/denial and thus the Joint Registrar placed the suit and the applications b...
Tag this Judgment!Yashpal @ Satpal. Vs State.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO the Digest?ORDER.The appellant/applicant has sought suspension of his sentence and to be enlarged on bail in the appeal filed by him against judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22nd September, 2007 and 9th October, 2007 in S.C. No. 1/2005 arising out of FIR 486/2002, P.S. Kalyan Puri under Section 365/396/302/395/412/212/34 of IPC. The appellant/applicant has contended that he has already spent 8 1/2 years in judicial custody and his long incarceration has rendered in his family destitute. It is further asserted that he has become depressed as he has been unable to fulfill his responsibilities. It is contended that he has a good prima facie case as the Sessions Court did not appreciate the deposition of Ms. Gayatri Devi(PW-4) that four persons went in her son's vehicle and who were identified as Sanjay, ...
Tag this Judgment!Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. Vs Central Distille ...
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may beallowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? 1. These are six writ petitions which involve the interpretation of clause 7.4 of the Terms and Conditions attached to the licences granted by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) to each of the Respondents permitting them to sell liquor at certain prices fixed by the Commissioner (Excise) under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (PEA 1914).2. Under PEA 1914, the Delhi Liquor Licence Rules, 1976 (Rules) have been framed which prescribe the procedure for grant of licence in the category of L-1 to L-20. L-1 is a licence for a wholesale vend of foreign liquor to be supplied to L-2, L-3, L-4, L-5, L-5A and L-19 licencees. The excise policy is announced by the GNCTD every year for each Financial Year in which the basic criteria for sale of liquor in Delhi is prescribed. After the issuance of the excise ...
Tag this Judgment!Government of National Capitalterritory of Delhi Thorugh .Principal Se ...
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may beallowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes1. These are six writ petitions which involve the interpretation of clause 7.4 of the Terms and Conditions attached to the licences granted by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) to each of the Respondents permitting them to sell liquor at certain prices fixed by the Commissioner (Excise) under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (PEA 1914).2. Under PEA 1914, the Delhi Liquor Licence Rules, 1976 (Rules) have been framed which prescribe the procedure for grant of licence in the category of L-1 to L-20. L-1 is a licence for a wholesale vend of foreign liquor to be supplied to L-2, L-3, L-4, L-5, L-5A and L-19 licencees. The excise policy is announced by the GNCTD every year for each Financial Year in which the basic criteria for sale of liquor in Delhi is prescribed. After the issuance of the exci...
Tag this Judgment!