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.
R. D. Gupta Vs. Union of India and Others Through the Secretary Govern ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
DR. RAMESH CHandRA PandA, MEMBER (A) : 1. Through this OA, Shri R. D. Gupta working as Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) with the respondents, the applicant herein, is seeking payment of full pay and allowances which inter alia includes subsistence allowance from 14.05.2004 (when he was placed under suspension) to the date of filing of the OA (27.07.2009) along with pay arrears of 6th CPC. His prayers are as follows:- “(i)To direct the respondents to release to the applicant his full pay and allowances (which inter alia includes subsistence allowance allowed, but not paid, to the applicant for the period of his suspension), along with annual increments, arrears of 6th Pay Commission, increase in DA etc., w.e.f. May 2004 onwards till date along with compound interest @18% per annum. (ii)To direct the respondents to pass a formal order for regularization of the period of suspension for all purposes. (iii)To award costs of these proceedings which have been thrust upon the applicant f...
Krishan Pal Singh Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretary Ministry of ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
(Oral) 1. Confronting with the objection of limitation, the applicant’s counsel seeks to withdraw the Application with liberty to file fresh one with better particulars after ascertaining the position from the applicant who is out of town and also after obtaining necessary instructions in this regard in accordance with law, if so advised. 2. The Application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid....
Bharti Sangam Trust Vs. Shir Vidya Charan Shukla and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
1. Vide impugned order dated 26.8.2009, CS(OS) No.1401/2005 filed by Bharat Sangam Trust under the signatures of Jagdish Sharma, claiming to be a trustee, has been dismissed: holding that Mr.Jagdish Sharma had neither pleaded nor shown any authority to sue on behalf of the plaintiff.2. The suit in question seeks a declaration pertaining to an agreement dated 10.2.2005, signed by Sh.Vidya Charan Shukla, defendant No.1, creating rights in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 i.e. MGF Development Ltd. and M/s.Columbia Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Under the agreement, a 0.5 acre land allotted by L&DO to Bharat Sangam Trust is to be developed, as per averments made in the plaint through defendants No.2 and 3. It is alleged in the plaint that the agreement in question fouls the terms under which L&DO has demised the land to Bharat Sangam Trust. The prayer in the plaint is predicated on the ground that if the agreement is allowed to be implemented, the plaintiff would lose a valuable property.3. We ...
Maya Daryani Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
1. The Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to the Respondents Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi ('GNCTD'), Respondent No. 4 and the Union of India, Respondent No. 5 to implement the policy declared by them for reduction of stamp/transfer duty by exercising the statutory powers under the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 ('NDMC Act') and the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 ('DMC Act').2. The Petitioner states that she is a purchaser of property No. 31, Rajdoot Marg, Diplomatic Enclave, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi. It is stated that in a budget speech by the Finance Minister, GNCTD for the year 2003-04 a statement was made that the rate of stamp duty and transfer duty leviable and payable to the GNCTD and the respective municipal authorities in respect of transfer, sale and purchase of immovable properties shall be reduced from 13% to 8%. It is stated that this proposal was endorsed by the Government of India inasmuch as the Minister of Urban Affairs made a speech ...
Kathuria Public School Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
1. Land measuring 80 bighas 7 biswas comprised in Khasra Nos. 1726 (3-3), 1727 (4-16), 1728 (2-12), 1729 (6- 14), 1747 (4-16), 1748 (4-16), 1749 (4-16), 1750 (4-16), 1751 (4-16), 1752 (4-16), 1753 (3-5), 1754 (6-2), 1755 (4- 16), 1756/2 (3-4), 1757/2 (3-4), 1875 (4-16), 1876 (4-16) and 1877 (4-3) in village Rangpuri alias Malikpur Kohi (Vasant Kunj) Tehsil Mehrauli was notified under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act vide notifications dated 23.1.1965 and 26.12.1965 respectively followed by an award passed in the year 1981. The case of the petitioner is that possession of the aforesaid land was not taken by the Government whereas the case of the respondents is that possession of the entire land except 9 biswas was taken on 31.3.1981 and was handed over to DDA vide notification dated 19.5.1981 issued under Section 22(1) of Delhi Development Act. The aforesaid land was purchased by petitioner No.3 Shri Ram Saroop Kathuria as karta of a HUF consisting of himself and his sons,...
Bhuley Singh Vs. Khazan Singh and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 is to the impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated 3.3.2011 which dismissed the suit for recovery of Rs.10,00,000/- filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the defendants/respondents. The amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was claimed being double the amount of earnest money of Rs.5,00,000/- which was paid under an agreement to sell dated 5.1.2007. By the agreement to sell dated 5.1.2007, the appellant/plaintiff had agreed to purchase and the respondents/defendants had agreed to sell the suit property measuring 2,000 square yards forming part of Khasra no.72, Village Sabhapur, Chauhan Patti, Illaka Shahdara, Delhi.2. When notice was issued in this appeal, counsel for the appellant confined his relief in the appeal not for payment of double the amount of earnest money but for refund of the advance price paid of Rs.5,00,000/-. This relief claimed is a lesser relief than the origina...
Kamal Kaul Vs. Pradeep Kumar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 02.08.2010. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court has dismissed the suit for specific performance by holding that once there is a clause in the Agreement for payment of double the amount of the earnest money, then, specific performance cannot be granted. The second ground was that the subject property was a lease hold property and, therefore, contract with respect to the same cannot be specifically performed. The suit has been dismissed without trial.2. The impugned judgment is clearly illegal and bound to be set aside inasmuch as Section 23 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 specifically provides that even if a contract provides payment of compensation/liquidated damages, the same is not a bar to the suit for specific performance. Section 23 of the Specific Relief Act clearly provides that the Court has to see various attending circumstances in order to de...
Prem Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.05.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in sessions case No. 123/1996 arising out of FIR No.261/1994 under Section 302 IPC registered at P.S. Pahar Ganj. The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and by virtue of the order on sentence dated 21.05.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The appeal is also directed against the said order on sentence.2. During the pendency of the present appeal, the appellant Prem Kumar had moved an application being Crl.M.A. 119/1999 claiming that he was a juvenile on the date of the incident i.e., 22.05.1994. Consequently, the appellant prayed that he be treated as a juvenile and be dealt with under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Chi...
Tata Steel Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
1. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Tata Steel Limited assails the Order No.556, dated 19.08.2011 passed by the Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) and Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (MCR) in revision application preferred by respondent No. 3, M/s. Jayaswal Neco Industries Limited (JNIL). 2. By the impugned order, the said revision petition has been allowed, and the impugned order dated 31.01.2007 passed by the State Government, i.e. State of Chhattisgarh, respondent no.2 rejecting the application for four mining leases made by respondent no.3 has been set aside. A direction has been issued to respondent no.2, State of Chhattisgarh to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, keeping in view Section 11(1) of the MMDR Act within a period of 90 days of the passing of the impugned order dated 19.08.2011. 3. Four Prospecting Licenses...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Ms Ram Chand Pruthi and Sons
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
1. The Delhi Development Authority ('DDA') in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act') challenges the Award dated 30th September 2008 passed by the learned Arbitrator rejecting the claims of the DDA and awarding some of the counter claims of the Respondent.2. The Respondent, M/s Ram Chand Pruthi & Sons was awarded a contract by the DDA for construction of 144 dwelling units (DUs) on 29th May 1970. The estimated cost was Rs. 19,43,840/-. The contract was to commence on 8th June 1970 and the stipulated date of completion was 7th June 1971. The Respondent was expected to construct the MIG Dwelling Units. Subsequently, a further contract for constructing 33 additional MIG DUs was also awarded at the estimated cost of Rs. 23,89,303/- with the stipulated date of completion as 7th September 1971. According to the DDA, since the work of the Respondent was slow and unsatisfactory, the DDA was compelled to rescind the contract on 24th January 1973....
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »