Delhi Court October 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.
Anuj Sharma and ors. Vs. University of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2011
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek directions to direct the respondent to convert the OBC category seats to the after general category which have remained unfilled 31.8.2011. 2. petitioners Mr. Kush Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the submits that 50 seats of the OBC category are still lying vacant which were never converted to the general category by the respondent University after filling the seats in the OBC category as directed by the Apex Court in P.V. Indiresan v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 7084/2011 decided on 18.8.2011. Counsel submits that there is a clear defiance on the part of the respondent University of the directions given by the Apex Court in the matter of P.V. Indiresan (Supra), as in terms of the said judgment the respondents were legally bound to convert the vacant OBC category seats into the general category seats. Counsel also submits that present petition candidate category. who the rank of some of ...
Ms. Salma Khan Vs. University of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2011
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to direct the respondents to grant her admission in the LLB Ist year course in the OBC category against the vacant 50 seats of LLB Session 2011-12.2. The brief background of facts which has led to the filing of the present petition is that the petitioner had secured 209 marks in the LLB entrance test and in the OBC category her rank was 444. It is the case of the petitioner that she was called to participate in the counseling on 13.7.2011 as per her rank but was not given admission on that day despite her rank being called but she was given an „option form' to fill her choice out of the three centers in the faculty of law. It is also the case of the petitioner that in fact the petitioner was provisionally admitted on 13.7.2011 but she was not granted final admission as the matter regarding the criteria for filling up the quota of 27% reservation for the OBC category was pendi...
New Hariom Industries and anr Vs. Dandi Salt P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2011
1. By this petition, the Petitioner confines his relief to quashing of FIR Not Necessary Yes Yes No. 240/2009 under Section 63 of the Copyright Act registered on the complaint of the Respondent. Though in the petition other reliefs such as direction to the Respondent not to conduct raid at his business premises have also been sought, however said prayers have not been pressed during arguments.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that both the parties are carrying on business at Gujarat and are well-known to each other. Despite knowledge about the Petitioners, search warrants were taken against unknown persons. Subsequently, even the copyright of the Respondent has been cancelled and thus it cannot claim violation of the copyright qua the Petitioners. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that no document has been filed by the Respondent to show that it was a prior user. Even perusal of the two labels show that there is nothing common and the two labels are clearly disti...
Shambhu Dayal Sharma Vs. Mcd and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2011
1. The petition as originally filed claiming the relief of quashing the election held on 20th April, 2011 of the respondent no.4 Ms. Rajni Abbi to the post of Mayor, Delhi Municipal Corporation was found to be incomplete and inadequate and permission granted to amend the petition. Though a proposed amended petition was filed but opportunity to further amend the petition was sought and was also granted. Proposed amended petition dated 1st June, 2011 has been filed. However since the notice of the petition had not been issued, though the counsels for the respondent no.1 MCD, respondent no.2 UOI and respondent no.4 Ms. Rajni Abbi were appearing on advance notice and were opposing even the amendments sought, and finding the controversy entailed to be purely legal, with consent, the counsels were finally heard on the averments in the last proposed amended petition dated 1st June, 2011. 2. The petitioner claims to be one of the Councillors of MCD. It is his case, that the respondent no.4 is...
Phoola Rani Vs. Rameshwar Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2011
1. This petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) has been filed by the petitioner-tenant questioning the correctness of the order dated 18.03.2010 passed by the Additional Rent Controller whereby her application for leave to contest the eviction petition filed by her landlord, respondent herein, under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act has been dismissed and she has been directed to hand over the possession of property bearing no. X-21, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi(hereinafter referred to as the tenanted shop) to the respondentlandlord. 2. The tenanted shop was let out to the deceased father of the petitioner in the year 1957 by the erstwhile owner thereof from whom the respondent-landlord claims to have purchased it in the year 1992. The respondent-landlord had pleaded in para 18(a) of the eviction petition, which was filed on 2nd June, 2009, about his requirement of the tenanted shop and the relevant averments are as under:œ1 The p...
Harpal Singh Vs. Leela Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2011
1. This petition under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 has been filed against the order dated 08.12.10 passed by the learned trial court whereby eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act filed against the petitioner - tenant by his landlady, respondent herein, in respect of one shop under his tenancy (hereinafter referred to as the tenanted shop) has been allowed and an eviction order has been passed after rejecting his application for leave to contest filed under Section 25B(4) of the Act. 2. The respondent -landlady is the owner of the property no. 1/4086, Ashok Marg, Ram Nagar Extension, Mandoli Road, Shahdara, Delhi and the petitioner is the tenant in respect of one shop on the ground floor. The respondent- landlady in her eviction petition had pleaded that her family was of twelve members comprising of herself, her husband, four sons, out of which two were married and have two kids each. The landlady further pleaded that the tenanted shop is required...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Durgesh Nandini Sharma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2011
1. By this common judgment, it is proposed to decide the aforesaid cross appeals filed against the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 21.05.2001, whereby and whereunder a sum of ` 1,24,800/- (inclusive of the interim award) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the order of the learned Tribunal till realisation was awarded to the claimants, being the legal representatives of the deceased Shri Upendra Nath Sharma, who died in a road accident on 04.06.1983.2. The factual matrix is that one Upendra Nath Sharma lost his life in a road accident which took place on 4th June, 1983 when he was hit by bus No.DEP-4624 plying on route No.760 under DTC operation, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. It is not in dispute that on the date of his death, the deceased was 38 years of age and was working as a Manager in M/s. Fair Lights, CB196/2, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt., on a monthly remuneration of ` 800/- per month. On his unfortunat...
Ashraf Vs. State (Nct) of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2011
1. By the present appeals, the Appellants lay a challenge to the judgment dated 21st August, 2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting the Appellants for offences punishable under Sections 452/395/397/34 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act and order on sentence dated 21st August, 2011 whereby Appellants were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month for offences punishable under Section 452 IPC., Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of one month under Section 397 IPC. Appellant Salim was also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs, 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 15 days for offence punishable under Section 27 Arms Act.2. Briefly the prosecution case is that on 8th July, 1999 at ab...
Mrs.Jyoti Khanna Vs. Registrar Cooperative Societies and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2011
1. Rule D.B.2. Learned counsels for the respondents accept notice.3. At request of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal at this stage.4. Late Shri Surender Khanna became a member of respondent No. 2 society and a share certificate was issued to him on 30.08.1995. He nominated the petitioner, his daughter-in-law, as the nominee on 15.07.1995. Late Shri Surender Khanna passed away on 29.04.1999.5. The petitioner applied for transfer of membership in her name on 24.10.1999 and respondent No. 2 society processed the case of the petitioner and issued a fresh share certificate in the name of the petitioner on 20.10.2002. The name of the petitioner was forwarded by the society to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies (for short, „RCS') with all the requisite documents as in the case of other members.6. It is stated that it is only in the year 2010 that a query was raised by the RCS qua the membership of the petitioner on the ground that she ...
In the Matter of M/S. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. Vs. --
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2011
1. Present petition has been filed under Sections 100 to 105 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short'Act') read with Rule 46 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (for short'Rules, 1959) for confirming the reduction of share capital of the petitioner-companycorpo.2. The relevant facts of the present case are that on 5 th July, 1951, the petitioner-company was incorporated as a public limited company under the name of M/s. Reckitt & Colman of India Limited. On 18th December, 2000, the name of the petitioner-company was changed to M/s. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited. 3. Between 14th February, 2003 and 19th May, 2005, the equity shares of petitioner-company were delisted from Bombay, Calcutta and National Stock Exchanges in accordance with Regulation 21(3)(a) of Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers Regulations, 1997. In fact, in view of the directions received from the said Stock Exchanges, M/s. Reckitt Benckiser Plc's subsidiary company, namely, Lancast...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »