Delhi Court September 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 9 of about 113 results (0.020 seconds)Maj. Gen. Satish Kumar Bhardwaj, S.M. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Applicant by this petition has prayed for quashing and setting aside RO portion of the ACR for the period of 27.10.06 to 30.06.07 and ROs and SROs portion of the ICR for the period 01.07.07 to 24.11.07. 2. Brief facts of the case are that applicant was commissioned in the Indian Army in the Grenadiers (Infantry) on 23.12.73 and has an unblemished and outstanding record of service. During his service career he has done NDC and other military courses and earned a good record which has enabled him to reach to the rank of Major General. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is limited pertaining to two ACRs i.e. for the period of 27.10.06 to 30.06.07 and 01.07.07 to 24.11.07. So far as the first part of ACR is concerned, it appears that it was written on 09.12.2007. According to the guidelines which has given for writing the ACR under the Army Order 45/01/MS, Military Secretary Branch in Part-IV under the heading of Initiation, Completion or Disposal or Movement of Confidential Reports, ...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Rajinder Singh, and ors. Vs Sh. Bharat Singh, and ors.
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? YesORDER.1.Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners, assailing order dated 10th August, 2010 passed by Civil Judge, Delhi. Vide impugned order, trial court dismissed the application under Order 18 Rule 17 Read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short as Code), filed by petitioners seeking permission to recall PW1, PW2 and PW3.2. In 2007, respondent no. 1) (plaintiff in trial court) filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against present petitioners (defendants no. 1 and 2 in trial court) and against respondents no. 2) and 3 (defendants no. 3 and 4 in trial court).3. On 17th March, 2010, PW1, PW2 and PW3 tendered their evidence by way of affidavits. Opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses was given but the same was not...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. National Small Industries Corp. Ltd. Vs Shrishti Auto Engg. (P) L ...
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?ORDER 1. This application for review has been filed by the plaintiff seeking review of order dated 14th December, 2009, whereby this Court had granted leave to defend to defendants No. 2 and 3 in a suit under Order 37 Rule 1 of CPC. It is submitted by the plaintiff/review petitioner that this court in its order dated 26th April, 2007, had observed that the defendant No. 4 was very well aware of the pendency of the suit, but, had not filed memo of appearance within 10 days as per requirement of Order 37 Rule 2 & 3 CPC and the order with regard to this fact would be passed on next date of hearing. However, the necessary order regarding effect of not putting appearance by defendant No. 4 within 10 days was not passed and the order dated 26th April, 2007, skipped the notice of this Court at the time of considering the application ...
Tag this Judgment!Avinash Kumar. Vs State Thru . Cbi
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.ORDER1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of criminal trial pending in the court of Special Judge in C.C. No.71 of 2004. The ground taken by the petitioner is that on the same evidence which formed part of the criminal trial, departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and the petitioner was exonerated by the department. It is further submitted that the report of Investigating Officer dated 21st March, 2007 was also considered by the inquiry officer. In his report, the Investigating Officer had come to conclusion that there was no demand of illegal gratification of ` 5,000/- made by the petitioner and the petitioner had not accepted the money from M/s. Suntex Enterprises owned by Sh. R.S. Guleria. Even S.P., CBI while drawing conclusion to his report sent to the departm...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Shbaeeb Raza Bilgrami and ors. Vs the School of Planning and Arch ...
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 the judgment should be reported Yes. in the DigestORDER.1. This petition has been preferred by 64 students of the respondent School of Planning & Architecture. The petitioners are either the 1st or the 2nd or the 3rd year students of the Bachelor of Architecture course, an approximately five year course. They were all prevented from appearing in the examinations commencing from 17th May, 2010 for the reason of not meeting the requisite attendance criteria. The petitioners claim that prior to 17th May, 2010 they did not know that they did not have the requisite attendance or that they will be so prevented from taking the exams. The writ petition came up before this Court first on 18th May, 2010 when while issuing notice thereof, by interim orders the petitioners were permitted to take the exams subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. It was how...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax .Vs Exxon Mobil Lubricants Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes.2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ORDER.1. The present appeal by the Income Tax Department has been filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for brevity "Act 1961") challenging the order dated 2nd April, 2009 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "ITAT") in ITA No. 1261/DEL/2008 for the Assessment Year 2003-2004. By the impugned order, ITAT has deleted the addition of Rs. 1,34,34,500 /- made by the Assessing ITA 288/2010 Page 1 of 8 Officer (hereinafter referred to as "AO") on account of prior period expenses.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of this case are that respondent- assessee filed a return declaring a loss of Rs 3.81 Crores. The case was selected for scrutiny wherein AO observed that although the respondent assessee had entered into an agreement in August, 2002 with M/s Exxon Mobil Asia Pacific PTE. Ltd. ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Sudeshna BhattacharyA. Vs Dr. Kamal K. DuttA.and ors.
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? YesORDER.1.Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in which following prayers have been made;(a) Restore the application for re-calling of order dated 28/8/2008 which has been dismissed vide order dated 7/7/2010 by Additional District Judge, Delhi and;(b) Permit the petitioner to lead her evidence.2. Brief facts are that respondent no.1) (petitioner before trial court), filed a suit for damages to the tune of Rs.5,10,000/- againstpresent petitioner (defendant no. 2) (defendant no. before trial court) and respondentno.3) (defendant no. 1 before trial court). 3. Petitioner has been contesting the suit and has filed her writtenstatement. On 28th August, 2008, counsel for petitioner filed anapplication for withdrawal of the vakalatnama, which was dismissedby trial court, vide...
Tag this Judgment!Rao O.P.M. College of Education. Vs. National Council for Teacher Educ ...
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 the judgment should be reported Yes. in the Digest?ORDER1. The petitioner had applied to the Northern Regional Committee (NRC) of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) for recognition for starting D.Ed. course with effect from the academic session 2008-2009. The NRC rejected the said application of the petitioner vide its order dated 23rd April, 2009. The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal to the Appeal Committee of the NCTE and which appeal was disposed of vide order dated 26th November, 2009. The contention of the petitioner is that the NRC had rejected the application only on two grounds i.e. (i) CLU is not issued by the competent authority on the prescribed format and (ii) the State Government recommendation is negative. It is contended that the Appeal Committee was satisfied that the CLU produced by the petitioner was by the appropr...
Tag this Judgment!Govt of Nct of Delhi and ors.Vs. Hc Ram Kumar.
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. HC Ram Kumar and Ct.Sunil were charge sheeted; the charge being that Deepak, an under-trial prisoner, escaped from the judicial lock-up on 14.5.2004 after he was produced in Court at about 1:15 PM and brought back to the lock-up. It was alleged against Ct.Sunil Kumar that the under- trial prisoner was entrusted to him, to be taken from the lock- up and brought back after being produced in Court. It was alleged against HC Ram Kumar that he was in-charge of the lock-up and was negligent in performing his duties and as a result whereof the under-trial prisoner managed to escape.2. The inquiry report was submitted after witnesses were examined and record was perused. It was found that Ct.Sunil Kumar had brought back the under-trial prisoner after he was produced in Court and had handed over his custody to HC Ram K...
Tag this Judgment!Uoi and anr.Vs. Sanjay Kumar 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. Relevant dates may be noted. 15.9.1997 is the date when the Prasar Bharti (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act 1990 was notified with 23.11.1997 being notified as the appointed date being the date where from the erstwhile Civil Servants under the Union of India in the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting were to be treated as on deputation with Prasar Bharti. It be noted that activity of broadcasting through the visual and audio media i.e. radio and television which hithertofore was with the Union Government was transferred to a statutory corporation. Vide Section 11 of the Act these employees could opt for service under Prasar Bharti failing which they were to be treated as Central Government Employees and on deemed deputation with Prasar Bharti.2. Issues arose, as they usually do in India, and in particu...
Tag this Judgment!