Delhi Court January 2011 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2011 Page 2 of about 216 results (0.024 seconds)Sh. Arun Kumar JaIn Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether 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 No in the Digest?1. The petitioner claiming to be the bhumidhar of 46 Bigha 19 Biswas of land spread out over Khasra Nos.716(12-8), 717(2-7), 718(5-17), 719(2-0), 720(4-8), 721(8-1), 722(2-0), 723(1-5), 724(1-3), 727(3-5), 728(3-5), 1149(0-13) & 1197(0-7) in the revenue estate of village Bhatti, New Delhi and further claiming to have bound the said land with a wall, gates and have provided electricity connection, tube well and rooms therein and further claiming that the respondents i.e. the Revenue Officials, Officials of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and of the Forest Department have on 12 th September, 2006 illegally demolished the said wall, construction etc. without any notice, has filed the present writ petition claiming restoration of possession, wall, construction, tube well, electricity connection etc. as existing earlier....
Tag this Judgment!Atmiya Chemcials Vs. Gas Authority of India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
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. The question raised in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution concerns the reasonableness of the charges demanded by the Respondent GAIL (India) Ltd. (GAIL) from the Petitioner for transportation/transmission of gas to the Petitioners unit in Bharuch District Gujarat from GAILs Gas Generating Station (GGS) at Motwan, Gujarat.2. The Petitioner firm entered into an agreement dated 18th July 2003 with the GAIL whereby GAIL agreed to supply to the Petitioner gas from GGS Motwan with effect from 30th November 2003 up to 29th November 2005 on the terms and conditions set out in the agreement. In terms of Clause 4.01, gas was to be delivered to the Petitioner at the Gas Metering Station (GMS) located at GAILs premises in Motwan. The gas was to be transported from the downstream flange of the pipel...
Tag this Judgment!Yogita Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
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 1. The Petitioner is the widow of deceased Shri Sita Ram who died in a terrorist attack on 22nd May 2005 at 8.20 pm in the Liberty Cinema Hall owned by Respondent No. 2. The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), Respondent No. 1, gave the Petitioner an ex gratia amount of Rs.1 lakh. The deceased left behind the Petitioner and two minor children aged five and three years. In the circumstances, the present petition has been filed for directions to Respondent Nos.1 & 2 to jointly and severally pay damages in the sum of Rs.9,60,000/- calculated inter alia on the basis that the Petitioners late husband who was working as a plumber and was aged 30 years, earning an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month.2. A reply on behalf of Respondent No.1 has been filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) (Sp...
Tag this Judgment!Havildar Surender Singh Vs. Union of India 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? 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and the record pertaining to the Summary Court Martial Proceedings against the petitioner has been perused.2. At the outset, it may be noted that the record does not evidence any advice by the Deputy Judge Advocate General to record Additional Summary of Evidence, to test the authenticity or veracity of any statement made by the recruit Upender Prashar as pleaded in paras 9 and 10 of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner had been given an inspection of the record, as recorded in the order dated 28.1.2011, and makes a statement in Court today that the record belies the assertion of the petitioner in paras 9 and 10 of the writ petition.3. On the night intervening 1st and 2nd September 2001 a commotion took place in the barrack where the recruit Upender Prashar was...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Development Authority Vs. Madhu Mehra
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 the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?ORDER1. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of accordingly.Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has assailed the order dated 7th January, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petition (C) No. 3790/2007 and directing that the respondent herein, Ms. Madhu Mehra's name would be included in the next mini draw of lots which would be held not later than 2 months from the date of the said order and the demand-cum-allotment letter would be issued at the cost as per Change of Address policy of the DDA.2. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the DDA is that the respondent had not written the letter dated 13th October, 1998 about the chang...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip Kumar Vs. Amrit Rai Aggarwal 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? Yes1. Appellant is aggrieved of the order dated 21.02.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 525/2004, whereby the learned Judge has disposed of the injunction applications filed by the appellant and respondents No. 1 to 4 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The learned Judge has allowed the application filed by these respondents under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 thereby restraining the appellant from selling, transferring, alienating or creating any third party interest in the suit property bearing house No. 426-431 situated at Friends Industrial Area, Gali No.8, GT Road, Shahdara, Delhi shown in red colour in the site plan but dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC with respect to similar relief qua the portion shown in green colour in...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Raj Bhola Vs. Union of India 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? 1. Prem Raj Bhola i.e. the petitioner joined service as an Assistant Sub-Inspector under CISF on 28.8.1986 and in April 1989 earned promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector. He was an outstanding sportsman and earned gold and silver medals in the All India Police Games held in the year 1988 till the year 1994 he won 4 gold medals and 3 silver medals spread over 6 years. Posted at the battalion stationed at Mazagaon Docks Mumbai, petitioner was sanctioned 15 days' leave from 31.8.1996 till 24.9.1996. He came to Delhi, where his family resides and since he did not report back on 25.9.1996 a letter dated 26.9.1996 was written to him requesting him to join forthwith. He responded by informing that he was unwell and sought leave to be extended and enclosed a certificate issued to him by a Consultant Physician at Safdarjung H...
Tag this Judgment!In the Matter Of: Naib Risaldar Vijay Pal Vs. Union of India and Other ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The applicant had filed W.P.(C) No.7173/2009 in the Honble Delhi High Court. The same was transferred to this tribunal on 02.12.2009. The applicant has prayed that the order of his discharge dated 23.01.2009 (Annexure P-5) be quashed and he be promoted with ante date seniority as held in Honble Delhi High Court Judgment dated 30.01.2009 given in Kalu Ram case. 2. The applicant was enrolled on 29.01.1983 and rose to the rank of Naib Risaldar. During his service the applicant was medically downgraded to H 2 (P) and as a result was discharged for the first time on 29.02.2008. He was, however, reinstated on 19.01.2009 as a sequel to Honble Delhi High Court order dated 20.11.2008 given in Putan Lal case. A few days after rejoining, the applicant was discharged for the second time on 31.01.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation in the rank of Naib Subedar vide letter dated 23.01.2009. 3. The applicant contends that during the period of his absence on discharge between 29.02.2008 to...
Tag this Judgment!Airports Authority of India Vs. M/S Grover International Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether 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 No in the Digest?1. Both arbitration suits have been filed by the two parties to the arbitration namely the Airports Authority of India (AAI) and Grover International Ltd. (GIL) under Sections 14 & 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for filing of the arbitration award dated 1st June, 2000 in this Court. GIL in its suit being CS(OS) 1532A/2000 has also sought making of the award rule of the Court. Upon the award being filed in this Court, AAI filed objections thereto being I.A. No.550/2001 in CS(OS) 1507A/2000 and which objections now fall for adjudication. No objections to the award have been filed by GIL. However GIL in its suit has filed applications for interim relief.2. Arbitrable disputes arose between the parties out of "Agreement regarding land for Five Star Hotel including Hotel Shopping Arcade" dated 7th September, 1989....
Tag this Judgment!Sarda Energy and Minerals Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
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 order should be reported Yes in Digest?1. The Petitioner Sarda Energy and Minerals Ltd. [(previously known as Raipur Alloys and Steel Ltd. (RASL)] is aggrieved by an order dated 5th February 2008 of the Mines Tribunal dismissing the Petitioners revision application under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) and Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (MCR). The Petitioner had, in the said revision petition, challenged the decision of the Government of Chhattisgarh, Respondent No. 2, rejecting the Petitioners application dated 25th April 1995 for grant of a prospecting licence (PL) for iron ore over an area of 124.32 hectares (ha) in Boriatibbu in District Rajnandgaon. The rejection of the Petitioners application for grant of PL on the ground that it had been sanctioned a mining lease (ML) for iron ...
Tag this Judgment!