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.
Rajveer Singh Vs. Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication and I.T., ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2011
MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) 1. Counsel for the applicant, on instruction from the applicants, seeks permission to withdraw this O.A. with liberty to give representation to the Department pointing out how they had attempted the question as per the key note. In spite of their correct answer, they have not been given marks as mentioned in the guidelines or even given “zero” marks in spite of attempting the question correctly, individually by referring to the question and key note specifically. 2. In case any such representation is given by the applicants individually within two weeks, respondents shall consider and decide the same on merits by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months thereafter, under intimation to the applicants. 3. In view of above, O.A. is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty and direction as aforesaid....
National Highways Authority of India Vs. Ms Bhageeratha Engineering Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
1. This petition is by the National Highways Authority of India (‘NHAI’) under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) challenging an Award dated 20th March 2010 further amended by an Award dated 9th September 2010 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal "to the extent it has been held therein under Claim No. 2 that where the quantity executed is less than 75% of the BOQ, the Claimant is entitled to compensation towards loss of profit due to reduction in quantity beyond 25% of BOQ and the amount awarded to the Claimant on that ground by way of the amended Award, as also to the extent that costs of Rs. 5 lakhs have been imposed against the Applicant and in favour of the Respondent by the Ld. AT."2. At the very first hearing on 27th April 2011, this Court noted the objection raised by the Respondent claimant, who appeared on advance notice, that the petition was barred by limitation.3. The facts relevant for the above purpose are t...
Madan Cloth House Vs. Pradip Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
1. This revision petition is under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958(in short 'the Act') and has been filed by the petitioner- tenant against the order dated 7th November, 2009 passed by the Additional Rent Controller whereby his application for leave to contest the eviction petition filed by his landlord, respondent herein, under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act to have the possession from him of one shop inclusive of godown, bearing Municipal No. 2/11, situated at Chhota Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi-32 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'tenanted shop') has been dismissed and an eviction order has been passed .2. The facts entitling the respondent-landlord to secure the eviction order were pleaded in detail in para no. 18 of the eviction petition and the relevant averments only are re-produced below:(i) That the petitioner is the Owner of the tenanted shop. The petitioner purchased the said property constructed on an area measuring 53 (fifty three) Sq.yards, consisting of a sh...
ifci Ltd Vs. Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
1. We have heard the counsel for the parties and with their consent are disposing of this writ petition. It is also necessary to observe that we had not required the respondents to file their counter affidavit, therefore, it should not be construed that the factual averments made in the writ petition have gone unrebutted or be deemed to have been admitted by the respondents. In fact, Mr Bhardwaj appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr Maninder Singh appearing for the respondent No.2 have submitted that they are denying all the allegations made against them on factual matters which are contrary to the stand taken by them before various fora in this matter. Of course on legal issues there cannot be any affidavit and therefore the learned counsel appearing for the respondents have controverted the same in their submissions before court.2. This case has had a chequered history with three rounds before this court and two rounds before the Supreme Court. In the first round the petitioner ha...
Modh.Aslam at Aslam Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
1. Judgment and order dated 30.11.1998 passed by the Learned Trial Judge convicting appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 397 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act is in challenge.2. The prosecution case emerging at the trial, shorn of unnecessary details, was that the appellant and his alleged accomplices; Mohd.Salim and Mohd.Hanif who have been acquitted entered premises bearing Municipal No. I-10 Jangpura Extension, New Delhi on 10.5.1992 at around 3.30 PM with intention to commit robbery and were armed with deadly weapons. Their entry was noted resulting in hue and cry being raised. The robbery got aborted. A crowd gathered. The accomplices managed to flee. Appellant was apprehended at the spot by the crowd and before he could be finally pinned down, he fired at the deceased Ram Prakash Nagar and his younger brother Ram Murti Nagar. The former died and the latter was injured. With the help of the security guard at House No.I-14, Jangpura Extension, appellant was apprehen...
K.R.Builders Pvt.Ltd Vs. Dda
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
1. Admit.2. Learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice.3. At request of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.4. The appellant is aggrieved by the unsuccessful endeavour of the respondent to re-open a closed chapter of a satisfied decreed by the impugned order dated 25.09.2009.5. The disputes between the parties which were governed by the arbitration clause resulted in an award in favour of the appellant dated 12.08.1996. The amount awarded was with simple interest at the rate of 16 % per annum from the date of the award till the date of payment or date of decree, whichever was earlier, on the awarded amount. Both the parties understood that the award was governed by the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (‘the old Act’ for short) as the reference was made on 01.01.1993 i.e. prior to The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the new Act’) coming into force. Thus, the appellant as a decree holder filed an application under...
Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi. Vs. Nectar Life Science Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
1. On 28th August, 2009, the following questions of law were framed:-"a) Whether the Ld. ITAT has erred in law in the facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the order of the CIT(A) whereby the CIT(A) held that since the interest paid on borrowed funds is more than the interest received on FDR, therefore, 90% of the gross interest received from FDR should not be reduced from the business income of the assessee for computing deduction under Section 80HHC?b) Whether the Ld. ITAT was correct in law in holding that the interest on FDR should not be reduced from the business profits since the interest income is not assessed by the assessing officer under the head ‘Income from other sources’?"2. The respondent-assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of bulk drugs. It is also exporting drugs manufactured by them.3. For the assessment year 2003-04, return of income declaring income of Rs.4,81,84,570/- was filed on 2nd December, 2003. The re...
Sarabjit Prakash and anr. Vs. Udyajit Prakash and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
1. Despite last opportunity granted no reply has been filed by respondent No.1. Respondents 2 to 5 are already served but have chosen not to appear.2. In view of the averments made in the applications sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay and the applications are accordingly allowed subject to payment of costs of `5,000.00 to respondent No.1.+ FAO (OS) No.719/20103. Respondents 2 to 5 have chosen not to appear despite service and are, thus, proceeded ex parte.4. Admit.5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 accepts notice.6. At request of learned counsels for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.7. The parties are brothers and sisters. The appellants and respondent No.1 are the brothers while respondents 2 to 5 are the sisters. The controversy primarily relates to property bearing No.33, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi of which the recorded owner was late Shrimati Raj Mohini who passed away on 20.4.1988. The appellants filed a suit for partition, rendition o...
Lalit at Babloo Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
1. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant Lalit @ Babloo against the judgement and order on sentence passed by Ld. ASJ, Delhi whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 498-A/302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.2. Present case was registered by the police of PS Nangloi on 24.06.1996 on the statement of Rajni (since deceased). In her statement to SI Sammer Singh of PS Nangloi, deceased Rajni informed that she used to reside along with her husband at house No. D-310, Shakkarpur, Punjabi Bagh. Her marriage had taken place earlier about four and half years back with one Ikram. That marriage continued for about four years and a daughter named Pooja was born out of that wedlock. In January 1996, her marriage took place with the appellant. After marriage, the appellant used to put pressure on her to indulge in prostitution. On 21.06.1996 he took her at the residence of her parents to meet them. At about 6.30 P.M. when her parents went to market, all o...
Mrs. Rajni Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Others: Through the Chief Sec ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) 1. Aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No. 3 to sponsor the applicant’s name for appointment on the post of Pharmacist (Homeopathy) she has filed the present O.A. seeking the following reliefs:- “(i)That this Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to allow this Original Application and direct the respondents no. 2 and 3 to consider her case for appointment for the post of Pharmacist (Homoeopathy), post code 001/08 without any discrimination. (ii)That this Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to allow this application and direct the respondent no. 2 to take a decision to fill up 04 un-reserved vacant vacancies as per merit list dated 8.3.2010 declared by the respondents no. 2 and 3 from the UR category without any discrimination. (iii)That any other or further relief which which this Hon’ble Tribunal may be deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the applicant.”...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »