Delhi Court November 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Bhalachandra Bhikaji Nalwade Vs. Ministry of Environment and Forests G ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-2011
1. This appeal is filed being aggrieved by the grant of Environmental Clearance (for short EC) for the 1200 mw (4x300 mw) coal based Thermal Power Plant (for short TPP) in favour of M/s JWS Energy Limited at Jaigad, Ratnagiri District, Mahrashtra State, by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (for short MoEF), Government of India dated 28.6.2010. 2. It appears the Respondent No. 1 granted EC in favour of Respondent No. 3 for the establishment of a coal based thermal power plant (1200 mw) at Ganpatipule Taluka and District Ratnagiri, Maharashtra State. It is the case of the appellant that he had filed Appeal No. 7 of 2007 before the National Environment Appellant Authority, New Delhi and the said appeal was dismissed vide Order dated 12.9.2008. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 388 of 2009 before the Honble High Court of Delhi and the said Writ Petition was disposed of on 18.9.2009 holding that the order passed by the Expert Appraisal Committee is appealable be...
R.K. Gupta Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2011
1. This is a petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of FIR No.95/2008 under Sections 420/468/471 IPC registered at police station Pahar Ganj, New Delhi.2. The aforesaid FIR was registered on the complaint of the respondent no.3 Mr. Davinder Paul Singh (Mr. Singh) who was partner of the petitioner in his business run in the name and style of M/s Kwality Caterers having its registered office at 1012, Mantola, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. This firm came into existence in 1998 as a sole proprietary concern of Mr. Hemant Jajoria. The petitioner as well as the complainant Mr. Singh were inducted as its partners in the year 2001 and this firm comprised of three partners with 1/3rd share each in the firm. Due to some differences, allegedly because of Mr. Singh's having started his business in competition with the business of the firm, the two partners namely the petitioner herein and Mr. Hemant Jajoria intended to dissolve the firm. Sensing this, the respondent Mr. Sing...
Shri Azad Singh Vs. Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corpo ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2011
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12th January, 1990 of the respondent herein, whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the Order of Removal from service dated 26.6.1990 was rejected.2. The petitioner has been in the employment of the respondent since 03rd March, 1982 as a Driver. After completion of probationary period satisfactorily, he was employed in permanent capacity of the respondent. On 11th December, 1987, he was charged for misconduct. The statement of Articles of Charge in brief is as under:(a) That on 27th November, 1987, the petitioner along with an outsider entered in the 'N' Block office of the respondent with a bottle of whisky and he started drinking there and misbehaved with the staff posted at the 'N' Block office and thus, the petitioner indulged into an act unbecoming of a Government servant.(b) At the aforesaid time and place, the outsider asked one of the persons on ca...
Mohd. Shamim Vs. Sh. Ram Kishore Sharma and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2011
1. By this common judgment both the aforesaid appeals are disposed of as they arise out of the same award dated 26th May, 2009 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ('The Tribunal', for short) arising out of the same accident which took place on 21.07.2006 and was caused by the offending bus No. DL-1PA-1092.2. Vide these appeals the appellants have assailed the impugned award dated 26.05.2009 whereby their claim petitions seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained in the said order were dismissed. The aforesaid bus No.DL-1PA-1092 was on route from Khajoori Khas bus stand to Mall Road. The bus was full of passengers. Both the appellants boarded the bus from the rear gate. Some of the passengers including appellants Hari Om Gupta were on the foot board. When the bus covered a little distance from Khajoori Khas bus stand, it allegedly struck from its left against a standing tempo and as a result of which the appellants fell down on the road and sustained injuries. A case FIR No...
Nate Kumar Sonkar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2011
1. This is a revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C preferred by the petitioner assailing an order dated 25.02.2011 passed by learned trial court whereby an application under Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ("the Act" for short) made by the petitioner seeking transfer of the case to Juvenile Court was dismissed.2. The petitioner was charge-sheeted under Section 302 IPC vide FIR No. 388 of 2006 registered at Police Station Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi. The petitioner filed the aforementioned application claiming himself to be a juvenile and hence prayed that he should be tried by Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) under the Act. The incident occurred on 5.6.2006. The bone test and dental examination of the petitioner was conducted by the Medical Board on 23.4.2008. As per this the age of the petitioner was opined to be 20 to 22 years.3. In the MLC of the petitioner conducted after his arrest, his age was mentioned as 18 years. In the letter ...
K.L. Kadamb Vs. Uoi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2011
1. The present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 21.12.1999 passed by Principal Bench, New Delhi of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) whereby OA No.495 of 1995 of the petitioner herein was dismissed.2. The petitioner was appointed as Labour Welfare Supervisor on 16.2.1965 in the Delhi Administration. On 21.02.1968, all the posts of Grade-I, II, III of different Departments of Delhi Administration were clubbed together and a new Cadre as Delhi Administration Subordinate Service (DASS) was formed and the petitioner was included in DASS Cadre as Grade-III (Executive). On 1.1.1970, the petitioner was promoted as Grade-II (Ex.) and on 1.1.1976 in Grade-I (Ex.). The next promotion avenue from DASS is Delhi Andaman Nicobar Islands Civil Services (DANICS). The appointing Authority of the Cadre DANICS is Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. In 1984, the petitioner's name was included in the list for entry in DANICS and sent to ...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajendra Seclease Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2011
1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") against the order dated 25.4.2008 passed by learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) in Appeal No.1056/DEL/2006 for the assessment year 2002-2003. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:"Whether the learned ITAT erred in law and on merits in restricting the addition on account of difference in sale consideration of unquoted shares to Rs.1,71,000/- by totally ignoring the value as itself declared by the assessee?"2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of sale and purchase of shares, dividends and securities. The Assessee filed income tax returns for the year 2002-03 under Section 143(1) of the Act. The return was put under scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) and 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued to the assessee. In the return, the assessee company had shown having sold 2255500 unquoted equity shares of various comp...
Sunil Talwar and anr Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2011
1. Issue notice.2. Ms.Rajdipa Behura, learned APP for State/respondent accepts notice.3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that a case under Section 498A/406 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioner No.1 on the complaint of petitioner No.2 vide FIR No.399/2008 at police station Mangolpuri, Delhi.4. He further submits that vide the settlement deed dated 15.09.2009, all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR have been resolved and the marriage between the petitioners already dissolved by mutual consent divorce vide decree dated 20.08.2011.5. Learned counsel for petitioners additionally submits that having settled the matter with the petitioner No.1, petitioner No.2 does not wish to pursue her case against petitioner No.1 and she has no objection, if the present FIR is quashed.6. Petitioner No.2 Smt.Bharti Talwar d/o Shri O. N. Narang is personally present in the Court. She has been duly identified by the IO/SI Uma Dutt, police station Mangolpuri. She further submits ...
Jaspal and ors Vs. State Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2011
CRL. M.A. 18355/2011Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.1. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR no.149 dated 16.05.2009, case under Section 308/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners qua the complainant / petitioner no. 3 at PS-Mukherjee Nagar.2. He further submits that compromise took place on 21.11.2011 between the petitioners and petitioner no.3 has amicably settled all the issues against petitioner no. 1 & 2.3. Ld. Counsel further prayed that in these circumstances, FIR may be quashed.4. Petitioner no.3 / complainant is personally present in the Court and IO / ASI Madan Lal of PS-Mukherjee Nagar has identified him. He submits that he has settled all the issue qua the aforesaid FIR and does not pursue the case further and if the present FIR is quashed, he has no objection.5. On the other hand, ld.APP for the state submits that the offence is under Section 308/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and i...
Smriti BhasIn Vs. Meera Sawhney
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2011
1. Late Sh.Mulakh Raj Sawhney was the perpetual lessee under L&DO of property bearing Municipal No.58, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. He died on 04.06.1981. His wife Ved Wati, son Arvind Kumar and daughter Samriti Sawhney were his legal heirs and thus inherited the estate.2. Arvind Kumar applied to L&DO for his name to be mutated as the perpetual lessee on account of death of his father, and for which claim, he relied upon a Deed of Relinquishment dated 14.08.1981, Ex.PW-1/2, stating that his mother and his sister were the executants thereof and that they had relinquished their share in his father's property and that he was the beneficiary of the relinquishment.3. Vide letter dated 08.09.1992, Ex.PW-1/3, L&DO mutated the property in the name of Arvind Kumar.4. At the time Arvind Kumar inherited the property from his father and upon the Relinquishment Deed being executed, it consisted of only the ground floor constructed on the plot. With his funds he effected further constructi...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »