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.
Union of India and Another Vs. Y.P. Madan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
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 petitioners UOI & Anr. has challenged the order dated 1st February, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA 2259/2009 titled as Sh. Y.P. Madan v. Union of India & Another directing the petitioners to take steps to verify the certificate issued by NDMC about the date of birth of the respondent and in case the petitioners are satisfied, to make necessary changes in the date of birth of the applicant from 26th May, 1950 to 31st August, 1950 and order dated 31st August, 2010 passed in CP 500/2010 directing the petitioner to deem the respondents retirement as per the verified date of birth of the respondent as 31st August, 1950 and to grant arrears of pay and allowances accordingly within a period of four weeks from 31st August, 2010.2. Brief facts to comprehend the controv...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kundan Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?J U D G M E N T (ORAL)1.By way of this appeal, the appellant seeks to assail the award dated 07.10.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, New Delhi. 2. The sole grievance of the appellant is with regard to the findings rendered by the Tribunal on Issue No.1, which read as follows:"Issue no.1The law is well settled that it is for the Insurance company to firstly establish that there was a condition in the Insurance policy regarding the plying of vehicle by a duly licensed driver, and secondly to prove that this condition was violated. In this case, I do not find any evidence of the driving licence of the driver being seized by police nor it has been placed on record in original in the court, by the Insurance company. It has also not produced the original insurance policy to prove the condition which was violated. Th...
Nakul Kapur Vs. Ndmc and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
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 Yes in the Digest?1. The writ petition impugns the order dated 9th July, 2009 of the Assessing Authority of the respondent NDMC revising the rateable value of Property No.B-36, Malcha Marg, New Delhi from the then existing value of `77,100/- to `8,00,000/- with effect from 1st April, 2004 and to `72,90,000/- with effect from 6th November, 2008 and the order dated 15th May, 2010 of the Additional District Judge dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order of the Assessing Authority.2. Notice of the writ petition was issued and counter affidavit filed by the respondent NDMC. After some hearing on 3 rd December, 2010, further particulars/documents were sought from both the parties and were filed. The counsels for the parties have been heard.3. The factual matrix emerging from the documents filed and the pleading is...
Kundan Singh and ors. Vs. Satya Bhushan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? J U D G M E N T (ORAL)1. By way of this appeal, the appellant seeks to assail the award dated 07.10.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, New Delhi.2. The sole grievance of the appellants in the instant case is that no amount has been awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal towards non-pecuniary damages and funeral expenses to the legal representatives of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicular accident.3. Mr. Pankaj Seth, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company does not dispute the fact that the Tribunal has not awarded any non-pecuniary damages to the appellants. Accordingly, the non-pecuniary damages and funeral expenses are awarded as follows:(i) A sum of ` 5,000/- towards loss of consortium, (ii) A sum of ` 5,000/- towards loss of estate, (iii) A sum of ` 5,000/- towar...
Mcd Vs. M/S R.P. Estates Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
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 the Digest?1. The two writ petitions impugn the common order dated 2 nd September, 2005 of the Addl. District Judge, allowing the two appeals preferred by the respondent herein against the order dated 15 th March, 2002 of the Jt. Assessor & Collector of the petitioner MCD amending the rateable value of the property No.S-9 & S-10 being the first and second floors, in Green Park Extension, New Delhi of the respondent at `17,05,400/- w.e.f. 1st April, 1998 and at `18,03,300/- w.e.f. 1st September, 1998 for the year 1998-99 and which rateable value was also followed for the year 2000-2001.2. The Addl. District Judge allowed the appeals of the respondent only for the reason that the petitioner MCD failed to prove that the notice dated 31st March, 1999 under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 so proposing...
Surinder Kumar Grover Vs. State and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed Yes to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes1. The short point involved in this matter is as to whether the Will, subject matter of the probate alleged to have been executed by late Sh K.K.Grover, has been proved or not in accordance with law. The execution of a Will can be proved by following provisions contained under Section 68 of the Evidence Act which reads as under:"Section 68 - Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence:[Provided that it shall be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a Wil...
M/S Metalite Industries Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes.3. Whether the judgment should be Yes. reported in the Digest?1. By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of both the references made by the Appellate Tribunal, Sales Tax Department, New Delhi. Initially ST Ref. No. 12 of 2002 was made on the following question of law:- "Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case and on a true interpretation of the scope of the term Iron & Steel within the meaning of section 14(iv)(vii) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the goods Cable Tray is not covered by the term Iron & Steel?"2. Vide ST. Ref. No. 4 of 2003 consolidated questions of law were referred by the Tribunal. Same are as under:-"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true interpretation of the scope of the term Iron and Steel within the meaning of section 14(iv)(vii) of the ...
Mahip Singh Saini Vs. State Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?ORDER1. This second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C has been made by the petitioner/ accused for grant of regular bail.2. The petitioner/accused was a practicing advocate and arrested in a case of grabbing properties by forgery and cheating. It was found that in the neighbourhood of accused one Ved Prakash used to live. The accused misused his capacity as a lawyer and identified Ved Prakash as Charanjit Singh as well as Rajinder in different courts at Delhi and U.P. Forged documents were prepared in order to grab property of complainant Naresh Kumar. Naresh Kumar's sister was the owner of the property bearing number 46, Ishwar Colony, Delhi admeasuring 206.7 sq. yards being a member of DMC Cooperative Staff House Building Society. Naresh Kumar was made a nominee by his sister. His sister was unmarried and died on 2nd...
Janak Dhawan and anr. Vs. J.D.World Wide Exports Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
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 CS(OS) 722/2008 & IAs 4847/2008 (O.39 R.1 & 2 CPC) & 17066/2010 (O.39 R.4 CPC)1. Plaintiffs No.1 & 2 are husband and wife. Plaintiff No.3 is their married daughter and plaintiff No.4 is their son. Defendant No.3 is the wife of defendant No.2. Defendant No.1, which is a company, was allotted 12,000 sq. meters of land by Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. (RIICO) for setting up a hotel at EPIP Sitapur Industrial Area, Jaipur on 5.2.1998. Additional land measuring 2,750 sq. meters was allotted to defendant No.1 on 26th April 1998, making the total area of the allotted land 14,750 sq. meters.2. As on 31st March 2004, the paid-up share capital of defendant No.1 was Rs.7,52,000/- divided into 7,520 equity shares of Rs.100/- each out of which 7,500 shares were held by plaintiff No....
Rajeev Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
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? PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Prayer made by petitioner Rajeev Kumar in W.P.(C) No.10331/2009 is to direct the respondents to pay him transport allowance together with interest @ 12% per annum on the arrears.2. The same petitioner, Rajeev Kumar, prays in WP(C) No.6305/2009 filed by him that the order dated 10.9.2010 transferring him from the Unit posted at Delhi to the Unit stationed at Shakti Nagar (UP) be quashed.3. Basis of the claim in W.P.(C) No.10331/2009 is the office memorandum dated 29.08.2008 issued by the Ministry of Finance records that as per the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission, it has been decided that all employees of the Central Government be paid a transport allowance @ specified in the office memorandum and that the previous condition imposed vide OM dated 3.10.1997 which carves out an ex...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »