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.
S.P. Lamba and Another Vs. Phj Securities Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
1 The order impugned before this Court is the order dated 05.10.2005 vide which the application filed by the defendants under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') had been dismissed. This order is the subject matter of the present petition.2 Record shows that the present suit had been filed by the plaintiff seeking a recovery of Rs.16,20,200/-; contention in the plaint was that the defendants S.P. Lamba and Saroj Lamba had utilized the services of the plaintiff company for the purpose of buying and selling shares through Stock Exchange on the promise and assurance of paying the amount of the purchase or differences of the amount of purchase and sale transacted through the defendants. Further contention is that during the financial year 2000-2001, defendant No. 1 for and on behalf of defendant No. 2 made purchase and sale of shares securities through the plaintiff company on different dates between 31.07.2000 to 28.03.2001; ...
Hindustan Photofilms Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Ms Anu Enterprise and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
1. Appellant Hindustan Photofilms Manufacturing Co. Ltd has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 2nd August, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the suit filed by the appellant seeking decree for a sum of `2,39,47,194.27 against the respondents, was dismissed.2. In the plaint, the appellant averred that it was carrying on a business of manufacture and sale of photo sensitized products including still photo products and graphics arts photo produces. On 30th July, 1984 and 1st August, 1984, the appellant constituted respondent M/s Anu Enterprises as its stockiest in respect of two types of products and entered into an agreement which was initially for five years and later renewed in 1989 for a further period of five years. In terms of the agreement, dealings between the parties were on a principal-to-principal basis. M/s Anu Enterprises, as stockiest, was entitled to a credit period as well as a trade discount on the product value and additionally to an agr...
Ms. Madhuri Vs. Union of India, Through the Secretary, New Delhi and A ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): 1. Ms. Madhuri, the applicant in the present OA, having worked as a Substitute Bungalow Khallasi, as per the letter dated 20.03.2009 for more than 200 days and claiming to have attained the temporary status, challenges the termination of her service issued vide letter dated 15.02.2010 (Page 13) without proper enquiry pursuant to a Show Cause Notice dated 17.12.2009 (Page 11). 2. Before we may address the controversy, it is noted that the case was heard earlier on 05.5.2011 and certain aspects of the case, though argued on that date, but were not elaborated, the parties were directed to clarify those points in the order dated 18.5.2011 in the following manner:- “The Applicant, working as a substitute Telephone and Dak Khallasi (TADK), is challenging the notices to show cause dated 24.11.2009 and 17.12.2009 as to why she should not be disengaged from service on the ground that the officer under whom she is working has reported that her working ...
Jai Bhagwan Vs. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi Through I ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
HON’BLE MR. GEORGE PARACKEN: 1. The applicant’s grievance in this OA is that respondent No.2, namely, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB, for short) has not declared his result in the competitive examination for the post of Driver with respondent No.3, namely, Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC, for short). 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent, DSSSB has issued an advertisement for appointment for the post of Driver with the closing date as 2.12.2009. Applicant applied for the aforesaid post under the OBC category. Since he was not in possession of an OBC certificate, he did not enclose the same with the application. However, he has applied for the same to the competent authority on 20.11.2009. The respondent, DSSSB allowed him to participate in the driving skill test held on 5.8.2010 and on that date he submitted the OBC certificate issued to him on 24.12.2009. Thus, he did not strictly complied with the terms and conditions of the advertisement ...
Laxmi NaraIn Yadav Vs. Union of India Through the General Manager, Jai ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
Hon’ble Mr. Shailendra Pandey, Member (A) 1. This OA has been filed challenging the orders dated 21.07.2009 and 29.12.2008 (Annexure A-1andA-2) in terms of which the respondents have regularized the following periods of absence from duty of the applicant as leave on half average pay and have paid him an amount of Rs.3079/- as leave salary: S. No. Period No. of Days 1. 12-5-1997 to 14-5-1997 3 2. 16-5-1997 to 17-5-1997 2 3. 21-5-1997 1 4. 26-5-1997 to 24-6-1997 30 5. 26-6-1997 to 30-6-1997 5 Total 41 Days __________________________________________________________ 2. The brief facts of the case, as set out in the OA, are that the applicant, who superannuated from service of the Railways on 31.12.2002, was sick during the period from 07.05.97 to 30.7.1997 and from 26.11.97 to 05.01.98, and states that he had submitted a medical certificate for these periods for purposes of regularization. The said period was treated by the respondents as under:- Period Leave Sanction 07.5.1997 to 11...
Rahul Yadav Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through the Chief Secretary, New ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
DR. A.K. MISHRA, MEMBER (A) 1. Since the cause of action and the relief sought in OA-3061/2010 and OA-3403/2010 are similar, they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Facts, briefly stated are as follows:- The respondent department invited applications on 05.02.2008 to fill up 8 vacancies on the post of Viscera Cutter (Post Code No. 01) out of which one was ear-marked for Ex-Servicemen. The applicant in OA-3061/2010 applied in unreserved category and the applicant in OA-3403/2010 applied for the reserved post ear-marked for ex-servicemen. It is stated that they satisfied the eligibility criteria mentioned in the notice. The qualification and experience mentioned in the notice are as follows:- “Viscera Cutter: Essential: Middle Pass (8th Standard Desirable: Working experience in Viscera cutting/Maceration” Both of them participated in the written test held on 05.04.2009, the result of which was declared on 21.05.2009 vide notice ...
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/S. Sri Prints and S ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President: 1. The facts of the case are that the complainant obtained comprehensive insurance policy from OP-2 Insurance Co. for his maruti car for an insured value of Rs.3,88,062/- w.e.f. 28th july, 2006 to 19th july, 2007. The vehicle met with an accident and the complainant spent Rs.57,756/- for its repair. He filed before the OP Insurance Co. his claim vide Claim Form (Annexure-A) for the re-imbursement of the amount of Rs.57,756/-, which the OP Co. repudiated vide letter (copy Annexure A-5) dated 25.7.2007, on the ground that on verification of the Driving License of the Driver Shri `Gajraj Singh, it was established that the driving license was fake while the policy schedule under the driver clause provided that the person who is driving the vehicle at the time of accident should hold an effective driving license. 2. The complainant, therefore, filed a claim before the District Forum with a prayer that the OP be directed to pay him Rs.57,756/- spent on repair ...
Dilbahar at Babu Vs. Gnct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-08-2011
1. By this petition the Petitioner challenges the orders dated 30th March, 2011 and 1st August, 2011 whereby he has been held to be above 18 years of age on the date of the commission of the offence on the basis of ossification test report dated 16th March, 2010 and seeks a declaration that the Petitioner is under 18 years of age on the date of commission of offence and in the alterative to get a second ossification test conducted.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the plea of juvenility of the Petitioner was rejected by the impugned order without taking into consideration the report of the dentist. According to the dental report the third molar had not erupted. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the third molar erupts after the age of 17 years and in view of this the age of the Petitioner was less than 18 years on the date of examination. Thus, the Petitioner was a juvenile on the date of the incident. He states that the average of the three reports that t...
Eveneet Singh Vs. Prashant Chaudhari and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-08-2011
1. The issue at hand is settled by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in FAO(OS) No.341/2007 Shumita Didi Sandhu vs. Sanjay Singh Sandhu & Ors. In paragraphs 48 and 49 the Division Bench held as under:-"48. The learned counsel for the appellant had also referred to Single Bench decisions of the Kerala High Court and the Madras High Court in the cases of S.Prabhakaran (supra) and P.Babu Venkatesh Kandayammal and Padmavathi (supra) to indicate instances of cases where the Supreme Court decision in S.R.Batra (supra) was distinguished. Those decisions are Single Bench decisions and that too of other high courts and are, therefore, of no precedential values insofar as this Bench is concerned. We feel that in view of the prima facie finding that the property in question does not belong to the appellant's/plaintiff's husband nor does he have any share or interest in the same, there is no question of the said property being regarded as a "shared household" in terms of Section 2(s...
Charanjit Lal Khatri Vs. Secretary General, Rajya Sabha Secretariat an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-08-2011
1. The Petitioner, who retired as Assistant Director (E&T) from Rajya Sabha Secretariat, the Secretary General of which has been arrayed as Respondent No. 1, has in this writ petition sought the expunging of certain adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report ('ACR') for the period from 1st August to 31st December 2007. The petition also seeks the quashing of an order dated 28th April 2010 passed by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat communicating to the Petitioner the gradings in his ACRs for the years 2005, 2006, 2007 (August-December) and 2008 which were below the prescribed benchmark of 'very good' required for his next promotion as Deputy Director (E&T). The petition further seeks a direction to the Respondents to promote the Petitioner as Deputy Director (E&T) with effect from 1st October 2010 or 1st February 2011 when his junior was promoted.2. The Petitioner joined the Rajya Sabha Secretariat on 9th July 1987 on the post of Translator in the grade of Rs. 550-900/- re...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »