Delhi Court January 2011 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.
U.O.i. and ors. Vs. T.M.Sampath and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2011
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. National Water Development Agency (hereinafter referred to as "NWDA"), a Registered Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and working under the administrative control of Ministry of Water Resources was set up in the year 1982 to carry out detailed studies, surveys and investigations in respect of Peninsular Component of National Perspective for Water Resources Development. For the proper discharge of its functions and smooth functioning, NWDA framed rules and regulations known as Bye-laws of the National Water Development Agency. For the purposes of resolving thecontroversy involved in the present case, it is most apposite to note bye-laws 26 (a) and 28:-"Posts and appointments:26 (a) The emoluments structure i.e. pay scales, allowances and revision thereof for the employees of the NWDA will be adopted ...
Uoi Vs. Shri Satish Nandan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2011
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?1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17th August, 2007 passed in CP No. 220/2007 in OA 2611/2005 titled as Sh. Satish Nandan v. Secretary and Anr., Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, holding that a prima facie case is made out for initiating action for contempt of the Court against the petitioner and listing the matter for further orders on 18th September, 2007. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present petition and the order dated 17th August, 2007 was stayed by this Court in CM No. 13490/2007 by order dated 26th September, 2007 which order was made absolute by order dated 5th December, 2008 and Rule D.B. was also issued on that date.3. Brief facts to comprehend the controversies between the parties are that the respondent had made a request for voluntary retir...
Surender Singh Yadav Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2011
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? (No) 1. The two appellants stand convicted by a Sessions Court for their having committed an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code('IPC' in short) vide judgment dated 16th September, 2006 and vide order dated 19th September, 2006 both of them have been awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and fine of ` 2000 each with a default stipulation that in case of non-payment of fine they shall undergo further imprisonment for one year. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge both the convicted accused had filed separate appeals but since both the appeals were heard together they are now being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The prosecution case, as appears from the trial Court record, was that on 26th May, ...
Ram Jane Vs. the State (Govt. of Nct) Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2011
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? (No)1. The two appellants stand convicted by a Sessions Court for their having committed an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code('IPC' in short) vide judgment dated 16th September, 2006 and vide order dated 19th September, 2006 both of them have been awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and fine of ` 2000 each with a default stipulation that in case of non-payment of fine they shall undergo further imprisonment for one year. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge both the convicted accused had filed separate appeals but since both the appeals were heard together they are now being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The prosecution case, as appears from the trial Court record, was that on 26th May, 2...
Ramesh Chander Arora Vs. Kashmir Saree Kendra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2011
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be Yes allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Yes the Digest?1. The present appeal has been filed to assail the order dated 5.10.2005 passed by the learned ADJ, whereby objections filed by the appellant against the arbitral award dated 9.11.2004 were dismissed.2. The brief factual matrix of the case is as follows. That the appellant is a readymade garments exporter whereas the respondent is a fabric supplier. The appellant entered into a commercial transaction with the respondent for the supply of 25,000 meters of silk at the rate of Rs. 85/- per meter. The respondent supplied the goods through three bills to the appellant. Disputes arose between the parties primarily over the issue of supply of defective goods by the respondent and non- payment of bills of the goods. I will not go into the details of the dispute for the sake of brevity but focus on the main issue.3....
Chaman Parkash Gupta Vs. Rajinder Kumar Gupta and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2011
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 Digest?1. No one has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff even on the 3rd call. This is a suit for partition and permanent injunction with respect to property No.Z-240, Loha Mandi, Naraina, New Delhi-110028.2. The plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are real brothers. The case of the plaintiff is that he along with defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and their mother late Smt. Kamla Devi formed a partnership firm under the name and style of M/s Chaman Parkash and Bros and the firm purchased plot No.Z-240, measuring 125 sq. yards situated in the lay out plan of Naraina Ware Housing Scheme, from the DDA on 29th August, 1975. This is also the case of the plaintiff that all the partners had 25% share each in the profits and losses of the firm and the partnership business is lying closed since the year 1998. The share of the mother Kamla ...
Central Informatiion Commission Vs. Department of Posts and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2011
C.M.Appl.No.19453/2010Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.The application stands disposed of.C.M.Appl.No.19454/2010This is an application for condonation of delay of 39 days. We have heard Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Jatan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. Mr. Jatan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent has no objection for condonation of delay and accordingly the delay is condoned. The application stands disposed of. LPA 782/20101. As we have condoned the delay, we are inclined to take up the appeal for final disposal. On consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is finally heard. 2. The present intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 19th August, 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No.11576/2009 whereby the learned single Judge has modified the order dated 3 rd August, 2009 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC for short) wherein a penalty of Rs.25,000/- was levied on the C...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Jayshree Bagley and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2011
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 ?1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 129 days in preferring the appeal.Mr. D.S. Narula, learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.The application stands disposed of.LPA No.795/20101. Delhi Development Authority (the appellant, for short) assails the judgment dated 19th May, 2010, quashing their communication dated 2nd November, 2009 and direction/mandamus to process the application of Ms. Jayshree Bagley and Mr. Mukul Taliya (the respondents, for short) for conversion of leasehold rights into freehold rights in respect of plot no.B- 35, Friends Colony, New Delhi admeasuring 209.032 sq. mts (the property, for short). Possession of the property was handed over by DDA to its original owner/allottee Ms. Rambat...
Ajay Bajaj and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-2011
1. By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of all the three petitions, as the issues raised are overlapping. The same are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of detention order passed against the concerned proposed detenues, before execution of the detention order qua them.2. The question, as to whether writ petition before execution of the detention order is maintainable, is no more res integra. The leading judgment on the point is of a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Additional Secretary to the Government of India & Ors. v. SmtAlka Subhash Gadia & Anr., reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 301 = 1992 Supp (1) SCC 496. The legal position expounded in the said decision has been consistently followed in several other reported judgments. In this decision, the Apex Court has observed that the Courts have the necessary power and they have used it in proper cases, although such cases have been few and the grounds on which the Courts have interf...
Friends Clearing Agency (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-ii
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2011
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?1. This appeal pertains to the assessment year 1992-93. This Court has been asked to answer the following questions of law:"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee- appellant is entitled to deduction of Rs.16,59,292/- being interest payable on loans raised by it from J&K; Bank as accrued and ascertained liability in respect of the year in question? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in upholding disallowance of Rs.50,000/- on estimate basis against a claim of Rs.1,48,782/- being expenses on cartage, labour and sealing expenses and without any material on record against the assessee?" 2. Insofar as the first question is concerned, we feel the following facts are required to be taken note of:3. The assessee had taken a...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »