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.
Ashok Kumar Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi, Through Chief Secretary, New De ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
1. This application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking quashing of impugned Orders dated 27.01.2011 and 11.02.2011 as at Annexure A (Colly.) and praying for further direction to the respondents to provide the employment to the applicant on compassionate ground. 2. The applicant’s father who was working as Chowkidar, expired on 6.8.2006 leaving behind his wife, daughter and son, the applicant herein. Thereupon, the applicant submitted his application on 14.2.2007 requesting for appointment on compassionate ground. The applicant’s case was duly considered in terms of relevant instructions of DOPT by the Screening Committee three times but was not recommended for appointment on compassionate ground. Accordingly, he was informed by the respondents vide Order dated 27.01.2011 that as his case had already been rejected thrice, further consideration of the case was not possible in view of the DOPT’s instruction...
Swapan Kumar Das Vs. Union of India Through the Chief Statistician of ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) 1. The present application has been filed challenging the short- listing of the names of respondents No. 3 and 4 made by the Search Committee (respondent No.2), which was constituted by the Union of India (respondent No.1) for recommending names of candidates for appointment to the post of Chief Statistician of India (to be referred as CSI). The applicant has sought the following reliefs:- “(i)to allow the present application; (ii)to quash and set aside the proceedings of the Search Committee (Respondent No.2) and their recommendations for selection and appointment to the post of Chief Statistician of India; (iii) to direct Respondent No.1 to reconstitute the Search Committee and consider the cases of only those Applicants, including the present Applicant, for the post of Chief Statistician of India who are eligible in terms of the Notification (Annexure :A-2) and the advertisement (Annexure : A-1) insofar as it requires statistical and managerial expe...
Hemant Saluja Vs. Cbi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
1. The Petitioner is facing trial in case RC.2 (S)/96/DL-1 under Section 120B read with Sections 420/468/471 IPC registered on the direction of the High Court of Guwahati, Agartala Bench.2. The allegations against the Petitioner in brief are that though the Petitioner's name was not forwarded for admission in the category however, the Secretary to the then Chief Minister in conspiracy with the other public servants issued a nomination letter dated 3rd October, 1989 in favour of the Petitioner for his admission in MBBS College, Trichur, Kerala knowing fully well that neither the Petitioner was eligible for the said nomination as nominee of the State of Tripura nor was Mr. Amal Kumar Roy himself authorized or competent to sign and issue the said nomination letter. Thus on the basis of the said fake nomination letter issued by Shri Amal Kumar Roy the Petitioner secured admission in MBBS College, Trichur, Kerala in the academic session 1989-90. During the Trial the Petitioner filed an appl...
Surender BhasIn and anr Vs. State of Nct of Delhi and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
1. Notice issued.2. Ms.Ritu Gauba, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of State/Respondent No.1.3. Mr.Rais Farooqui, Adv. accepts notice for respondent No.2.4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR No.662 dated 16.09.2011 a case under Section 448/380 was registered against the petitioners at PS Shakarpur, Delhi. Further submits that thereafter the matter has been settled between the parties vide settlement dated 19.09.2011. As per the aforesaid settlement, Rs.3 lakhs has already been paid to respondent No.2. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the FIR in the present case may be quashed. 5 Respondent No.2 Mr.Ramakant Pandey is personally present with his counsel Mr. Rais Farooqui, who has identified respondent No.2. In addition, SI Karambir Singh has also identified him as Mr. Ramakant Pandey.6. On instructions, ld. Counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that as per the aforesaid settlement dated 19.09.2011, the entire amount has been received by respondent No.2. The...
Mohd. Hanif Vs. Shamsun Nisa(Decd.) Thr Lrs.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
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 August, 2010 passed by the Additional Rent Controller whereby his application for leave to contest the eviction petition filed by his landlady, late Shamsun Nisa, under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act to have the possession from him of the premises bearing no. 2466-68, Second Floor, Gali Kuenwali, Haveli Mahawat Khan, Bazar Chitie Qabar, Jama Masjid, Delhi- 110006(hereinafter to be referred as 'the tenanted premises') has been dismissed and an eviction order has been passed .2. The facts entitling the deceased landlady, who died during the pendency of the eviction petition and thereafter was being represented by her legal representatives, to secure the eviction order against the petitioner were pleaded in detail in para no. 18 of the eviction petition and the averments which alone are relevant for the disposal of ...
M.A. Khan and anr. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
1. The New Delhi Municipal Council (for short ‘NDMC’)/respondent No.1 has an Engineering Cadre. The line of promotion is from a Junior Engineer (for short ‘JE’) to an Assistant Engineer (for short ‘AE’) to an Executive Engineer (for short ‘EE’) to a Superintendent Engineer (for short ‘SE’) and then to the Chief Engineer (for short ‘CE’) and the Engineer-in-Chief. From the post of SE onwards only such of the candidates who have degree are eligible. We are concerned in the present dispute with the promotion from a JE to an AE.2. The entry point for an AE is both through direct recruitment and departmental recruitment. 25 per cent posts are reserved for direct recruitment. A Graduation in Civil Engineering is a qualifying requirement for such recruitment. 75 per cent posts used to filled in through promotion from the post of JE. The entry point for JE was both for diploma holders and degree holders.3. There were, howe...
Food Corporation of India Vs. Ms. Deep Rice Mills
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
1. Award dated 24.3.2011 published by the Sole Arbitrator, Sh.S.Gopal in Arbitration Case No.736 'FCI vs. M/s.Deep Rice Mills', has been unsuccessfully challenged by the appellant before the learned Single Judge who has dismissed in limine OMP No.596/2011, finding no merit to even issue a notice.2. The learned Single Judge has noted that various similar petitions filed, being OMP No.567/2011, OMP No.570/2011 and OMP No.597/2011 raising same issue had been dismissed in limine and that awards in said matters were by different arbitrators but on similar reasoning.3. The award in question has recognized the validity of a deed of settlement signed on 12.7.2006 between the General Manager, Food Corporation of India (FCI), Punjab region (acting through Area Manager) and M/s.Deep Rice Mills. Other awards pertained to similar agreements signed between Rice Mill owners and FCI.4. In the award it has been noted; a fact not in dispute, that FCI had entered into an agreement on 17.10.1994 with M/s....
Yaro Khan at Ahmad Shah Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
1. The two appeals lay a challenge to a common order dated 12.09.2011 dismissing W.P.(C) No.2599/2007 and W.P.(C) No.4112/2007 filed by the appellant.2. The first writ petition sought a declaration that the appellant be declared a citizen of India by birth and order dated 13.04.2006 deporting appellant from India to Afghanistan be quashed.3. The second writ petition challenged the order impounding the Indian passport issued in the name of the appellant treating him as an Indian National.4. Dismissing both writ petitions by a common order, for the reason relief in the second writ petition was dependant and would have automatically flown from the relief qua the first.5. The two writ petitions have been held to be barred by res judicata as also without any merit and for the latter view taken, the learned Single Judge has noted the relevant facts.6. It is not in dispute that appellant had earlier on filed W.P.(Crl.) No.397/1998 challenging an order dated 05.05.1998 issued under Section 3(2...
Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Shivani Sood.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
1. CM No. 19359/2011 (exemption) in CM (M) No. 1223/2011 Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. CM (M) No. 1223/2011 and CM No. 19358/2011 (stay) Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 02.08.2011 vide which the application filed by the plaintiff under Order VII Rule XIV of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') to place on record two registered lease deed qua two premises of the same building to show the prevailing rates of rent had been permitted. Record shows that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for possession and recovery of damages/mesne profits. It is also not disputed that the said property has since been vacated. Issues had been framed on 01.032011 and it was thereafter that present application had been filed. The plaintiff by way of the present application sought permission to file two registered lease deeds of the same premises showing the rent prevailing in the said vicinity. The document sought to be produced by t...
Ravinder Kapoor Vs. Sushma Kapoor and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
Crl. M.A.12375/2011 (for exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Crl. REV. P. 464/2011 & M.B.1826/20111. Notice of the petition and application is accepted by Ms.Rajdipa Behura, Addl. PP on behalf of the State/Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 is personally present in the court and accepts notice.2. The instant revision petition has been filed challenging order dated 12.10.2011 of the learned Sessions Judge in Crl. Appeal No. 8/2011 whereby judgment dated 10.01.2011 of the trial court has been upheld and order on sentence dated 15.01.2011 awarding sentence of one year SI was reduced to SI for 6 months. Vide the trial court judgment the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.4.5 lakh as compensation also.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that total amount of Rs.4.5 lakh has been paid by the petitioner to the complainant and the complainant does not want to pursue this matter any further.4. Since the complainant has come forward and wants to compound ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »