Delhi Court November 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.
State (Gnct) of Delhi Vs. Akhlaq and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-2011
1. The State appeals, by leave (granted by this court) against a judgment and order, dated 09-04-2010 in SC No. 131/2009, acquitting the respondent (Akhlaq, referred to hereafter by his name, for the sake of convenience) of the charge of murdering his wife, Afsana, on 19-09-1994.2. The prosecution story was that On 19.9.2004, DD no. 10A (Ex. PW- 6/A) - was recorded at Police station, Welcome, when the police received an unknown telephone call informing them of a murder of a woman at around 3:20 PM. On three policemen reaching the spot, they found the dead body of a young woman, later identified as Afsana, aged 24-25 years; the body was lying on the floor on a plastic mat in the inner room of the ground floor of premises L-21, Welcome, Delhi. A white string (nara) was tied around the deceased's neck and a ligature mark was clearly visible. The deceased was wearing earrings, glass and plastic bangles and a ring. Used biri buds were lying inside the room. A pair of male slippers and a pai...
Prasar Bharati Vs. L.B. Narula
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-2011
1. The petition impugns the award dated 29.07.2007 of the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference:"Whether the contract awarded by the management of Chief Engineer, Civil Construction Wing, All India Radio, New Delhi to M/s Om Prakash, Malikpur, Tagore Park, New Delhi, is sham? If so, whether the demand of Sh. L.B. Narula for reinstatement in the establishment of Chief Engineer, Civil Construction Wing, All India Radio, New Delhi is justified? If so to what relief the workman is entitled to." and directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman along with 50% back wages with effect from the date of termination.2. Notice of the petition was issued and vide ex parte order dated 12.03.2008, the operation of the impugned award and proceedings initiated by the respondent workman for implementation thereof stayed subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of `2,00,000/- in this Court. The respondent workman applied under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ...
Suresh Ration Store Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-2011
1. The petition impugns the order dated 7th /8th February, 2008 of the Secretary-cum-Commissioner (Food & Supplies) of the Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 30th November, 2007 of the Assistant Commissioner (W), Food & Supplies cancelling the authorization/license of the petitioner for Fair Price Shop No.7945 situated at RZ-3, Madhu Vihar, Delhi under Circle-30.2. Notice of the petition was issued and vide order dated 27 th February, 2008 which continues to be in force, the effect and operation of the orders dated 30th November, 2007 and 7 th /8th February, 2008 stayed. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. An application being CM No.6012/2010 for impleadment in these proceedings was filed by one Sh. Vijay Walia. Notice thereof was issued; opportunity was sought by the petitioner to file reply but neither any reply was filed nor did the said Sh. Vijay Walia who was appearing in p...
Aman Gupta and anr Vs. State and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-2011
1. Notice issued.2. Ld. APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.3. Respondent No.2 Mr. Varun Jain is personally present in the Court.4. Ld. counsel for the petitioners submits, vide FIR No.672 dated 06.09.2007 a case under Section 452/324/380/427/34 Cof Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at PS Shakarpur against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2. Ld. counsel further submits that the respondent No.2 has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR with the petitioners. Therefore, he is not interested to pursue the case further.5. Respondent No.2 Mr. Varun Jain has been identified by the ld. counsel for the petitioners. In addition, he has also produced his PAN Card bearing No. AFMPJ0111N issued by the Department of Income Tax. He states that since he is living in the same locality, therefore, just to remove enmity with the petitioners he wants that the present FIR may be quashed.6. Ld. counsel for the petitioners submits that the charge has not yet been framed.7. ...
Mukesh Shankar and ors. Vs. Rohit Chhabra and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-2011
1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 14.09.2011 passed in I.A. No. 2497/2009 in CS(OS) No.459/2006. The application (IA No.2497/2009) had been filed by the appellants who were arrayed as defendant nos 7 to 9 in the said suit. The application sought modification of the status quo order dated 18.10.2006 on the ground that the appellants be permitted to carry out the repair/renovation work in the premises in question as also to install meat processing machines so that they can carry on their business.2. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the application primarily on the ground that the transaction between defendant no.1 and the present appellants (defendant nos 7 to 9) was itself under a cloud. As observed in the impugned order, the defendant no.1 had sold the suit property during the pendency of the suit. It is also noted in the impugned order that the defendant no.1 had got his name mutated in the records of the DDA on the basis of a will alleg...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Ms Videocon Industries Ltd. and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-2011
1. The appellant DDA impugns the order dated 29.01.2007 of the learned Single Judge partly allowing the W.P.(C) No.14961-62/2004 filed by the respondent and, while upholding the claim of DDA for unearned increase, quashing the demand of `15,09,31,495/- on account thereof and directing the appellant DDA to charge unearned increase at the rate of `100/- per floor / flat and at which rate the demand for unearned increase stands reduced to approximately `1,500/- only.2. The demand aforesaid for the unearned increase was with respect to commercial plot admeasuring 2548 sq. mtrs. bearing No.E-1, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi. The said plot was in the year 1980 put to auction and the bid of M/s Skipper Construction Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. accepted. However, upon the bid amount being not paid, the said transaction did not materialize and the plot was re-auctioned by the appellant DDA.3. This time, the bid of M/s Banganga Investments Pvt. Ltd. (BIPL) being the highest was accepted and in whose favou...
Smt.Anjini Devi and ors Vs. Ms.Vst Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-2011
1. These are cross appeals by Anjini Devi and others i.e. the plaintiffs (landlords) and the defendant (tenant) M/s. VST Industries Ltd. against the judgment and decree dated 6.8.1999.2. The grievance of the plaintiffs is to the mesne profits awarded by way of damages @ `50.40 per square foot per month as against the claim made for the same to be paid @ `85/- per square foot per month. The grievance of the tenant is that none were payable.3. Vide registered lease deed dated 23.5.1990, Ex.P-1, the tenant was inducted into the suit premises ad- measuring 2175 square feet on the first floor of Ram House A/18, Middle Circle, Connaught Place at a monthly rent of `25.20 per square foot for a period of 5 years and as per clause 17 of the lease deed Ex.P-1 sought renewal of the lease by offering to pay rent @ `85/- per square foot per month if the lease was extended by 5 years. As the parties negotiated the tenant started paying rent enhanced by 25% of the agreed rent i.e. `25.20 per square fo...
Ms Pioneer Publicity Corp. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms Vian Infrastructure Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-2011
1. No one has appeared for the defendant even on the third call to argue this application. I, therefore, have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and proceed to decide this application on merits.2. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.1,78,85,461/-. The plaintiff Company is engaged in the field of outdoor advertising for his clients. The defendant placed two orders one dated 4th November, 2006 and the other dated 17th April, 2007 with the plaintiff Company for advertisements. A sum of Rs.1,94,29,405/- became payable by the defendant Company. The defendant paid a sum of Rs.15,32,609/- vide cheque dated 4th November, 2006 and a sum of Rs.19,46,831/- vide cheque dated 10th January, 2007. These payments were made towards Bill dated 27 th November, 2006. The defendant thereafter did not make any payment to the plaintiff Company and a sum of Rs.1,59,49,965/- is alleged to be due from it to the plaintiff Company. The defendant issued ten cheques for an aggregate sum of Rs.1,37,67,600/-, ...
Ms Ambuja Cement India Private Ltd. Vs. Ms Holcim (India) Private Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-2011
1. The appellant DDA impugns the order dated 29.01.2007 of the learned Single Judge partly allowing the W.P.(C) No.14961-62/2004 filed by the respondent and, while upholding the claim of DDA for unearned increase, quashing the demand of `15,09,31,495/- on account thereof and directing the appellant DDA to charge unearned increase at the rate of `100/- per floor / flat and at which rate the demand for unearned increase stands reduced to approximately `1,500/- only.2. The demand aforesaid for the unearned increase was with respect to commercial plot admeasuring 2548 sq. mtrs. bearing No.E-1, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi. The said plot was in the year 1980 put to auction and the bid of M/s Skipper Construction Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. accepted. However, upon the bid amount being not paid, the said transaction did not materialize and the plot was re-auctioned by the appellant DDA.3. This time, the bid of M/s Banganga Investments Pvt. Ltd. (BIPL) being the highest was accepted and in whose favou...
Ram Kumar Yadav Vs. the Chairman-cum-managing Director, Through Deputy ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-2011
Hon’ble Shri George Paracken: 1. Applicant is a retired employee of the respondent - Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC, for short). His main prayer is to grant/release him pension with effect from the date of his proceeding on VRS on 28.2.1994 with up-to-date arrears. 2. Briefly stated, the applicant joined the service of DTC on 2.12.1968 and there he became a member of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (CPF Scheme for short) as the provision of pension was not applicable to the DTC employees. Later, vide (Annexure A-1) office order dated 27.11.92, DTC introduced a Pension Scheme for its employees as applicable to Central Government employees to be operated/managed by the LIC effective from 3.8.1981. According to the said Scheme, the serving as well as the retired employees were allowed to give their option for pension. The applicant, accordingly gave his option for pension and the said fact was also endorsed in his service book on 22.1.1993. Subsequently, the DTC, vide Annex...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »