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.
Sumant Kumar Tyagi Vs. the Union of India (Through Secretary) Ministry ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-08-2011
DR. A.K. MISHRA, MEMBER (A) 1. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the present Contempt Petition are as follows:- The applicant was appointed in the office of Controller of Defence Accounts (Western Command) Meerut as LDC. A major penalty charge sheet was issued to him on 25.03.1983 on the allegation of unauthorized absence since 15.11.1980. Pursuant to the penalty imposed on him in the disciplinary proceedings he was compulsorily retired from service w.e.f. 31.08.1984 (AN). Challenging this order, he filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad which was disposed of on 23.09.1999 with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the applicant, where upon the respondent authority passed the speaking order dated 10.01.2000 discussing the grounds raised by the applicant in his representation. It is mentioned in the order that the applicant had not filed any appeal or revision petition against the penalty order which has become fin...
Hemant Sharma and ors Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-2011
1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct respondent no.1 i.e. UOI to the Secretary, Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, to take appropriate steps so that respondent no.2 i.e. All India Chess Federation does not ban/threaten to ban chess players, associating themselves with other chess associations. Respondent no.2 is the National Federation for the sport of chess, recognized by respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 also is the body recognized by the concerned international federation i.e. Federation Internationale Des Echess (FIDE).2. The petitioners claim to be chess players. In the past, they have registered themselves with respondent no.2 on an annual basis. They have been participating in chess tournaments organized by respondent no.2, and those which respondent no.2 has authorized or approved. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners being amateurs, like to play chess whenever an opportunity presents itself, even in those tou...
Suraj Modi Vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-2011
1. By this petition the Petitioner inter alia seeks transfer of investigation relating to FIR No. 114/2011 under Section 302 IPC registered at PS Vasant Kunj to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner is an unfortunate father of Shobhit Modi who died a homicidal death at about 9.30 P.M. near C-5, Gali No. 2, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The Petitioner had specifically named the family of one Ms. Shivangi who was close to her son. The Petitioner suspects R.N. Bhadwar, father of Shivangi to possibly have a hand in his son's death. The Petitioner has specific reasons for naming them as his son and Shivangi had relations which were not approved by R.N. Bhadwar. In this context on or around 17th February, 2011 R.N. Bhadwar had visited the Petitioner's home and specifically expressed his disapproval of Shobhit's relationship with Shivangi. He had also arranged goons to misbehave with Shobhit in October, 2010. Despite R.N. Bhadwar ha...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ms Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-2011
1. The captioned appeals pertain to assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the „Tribunal’) had by a common judgment dated 29.12.2005 disposed of three appeals pertaining to the aforementioned assessment years. Out of the three appeals, two appeals had been filed by the revenue, while the third appeal had been filed by the assessee. The revenue had filed appeals for both the assessment years, i.e., 1997-98 and 1998-99, while the assessee had filed an appeal only qua assessment year 1997-98. However, before us the common ground is that the appeals pertained to a singular issue, though the amounts involved differ in each of the captioned assessment years. Therefore, we have framed the following questions of law for assessment years 1996-97 and 1998-99, which, as would be evident, apart from the amounts involved are otherwise identical:Assessment year 1998-99Whether ITAT was correct in law in holding that the expendit...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ms Amway India Enterprises
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-2011
1. The captioned appeals pertain to the years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. The said appeals involve two issues: The first issue being: the treatment to be accorded to expenditure incurred by the assessee on purchase of software applications. These applications being: MS Office Software, Anti Virus software, Lotus Notes Software and Message Exchange applications. The assessee in respect of these applications acquired a licence to use the said applications on payment of consideration. The said expenditure has been disallowed by the Assessing Officer in each of the assessment years by treating the expenditure as one incurred on capital account. Accordingly, depreciation at the rate of 25% was allowed to the assessee. The assessee carried the matter in appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)]. The CIT(A) while sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer, allowed depreciation at the rate of 60%. This resulted in both the assessee and the revenue b...
Ms B.R. Arora and Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Highways Authority ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-2011
1. OMP No. 170 of 2009 by M/s. B.R. Arora & Associates Private Limited has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) seeking for interim relief against the Respondent National Highways Authority of India (‘NHAI’) in relation to the construction of balance work of 8 laning of KM 16.500 to KM 29.300 of NH-1 in Delhi. The specific prayer is to restrain NHAI from preventing the Petitioner from using the batch mixed plant at Jagdish Pur, Sonepat (Haryana) and wet mixed plant at Jind Pur, Delhi and various other equipments like pavers, vibratory rollers, PTR, loaders, bitumen sprayer, diesel generator set, lab etc.2. At the hearing of the petition on 19th November 2009, on the oral request of learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner, this Court permitted M/s. Bhola Singh Jaiprakash Construction Limited to be impleaded as party Respondent. It was stated the Petitioner’s plant and machinery were not being utilized by N...
Smt. Ravinder Kaur Vs. the Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-2011
1. The petitioner, in the writ petition claims the following reliefs:- "(i) To quash the impugned order dated 3.10.07 in respect of declaring the petitioner as surplus staff as TGT (Science) from the Sri Guru Teg Bahadur Khalsa Boys Sr. Sec. School, Dev Nagar, New Delhi (Respondent No.4 School) and transferring her to C.L. Bhalla DAV Sr. Sec. School, Jhandewalan, New Delhi (Respondent No.5 School) as TGT (Science) vide order dt. 3.10.07 issued by the Dy. Director of Education, Central Distt., New Delhi;(ii) To direct the respondents to restore the petitioner to the post of PGT (Punjabi) teacher as already ordered vide orders dated 1.8.07 issued by the Managing Committee of Respondent No.4 School with all consequential benefits including deemed promotion w.e.f. 1.8.07 and fixing her pay in the pay scale of the promotional post i.e., `6500/ - `10,500/- and pay the arrears w.e.f. 1.8.07;"2. Notice of the petition was issued. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents no.1 to 3 ...
National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Jaiprakash Industrie ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-2011
1. At the outset it may be noted that the impugned order dated 11.2.2010 decides objections filed by the respondent under Section 30/33 of the Arbitration Act 1940 to an award made on 21.12.1996 by the sole arbitrator and the appeals have been filed under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act 1940. The appeals cannot be thus captioned as 'Regular First Appeal (OS)'. The appeals have to be captioned 'First Appeal against Order (OS)'. It is unfortunate that in spite of the Registry of this Court so intimating learned counsel for the appellant and requiring the appeals to be filed as per format applicable to a First Appeal against Order, the counsel has persisted to have the appeals laid before the Court as Regular First Appeals.2. An unintentional error may be a mistake but persistence with an error, in spite of being cautioned to take reasonable care and rectify the error, would be a wrong and thus we would be perfectly justified in dismissing the Regular First Appeals filed against the imp...
Raju Chakravarthy Vs. State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-2011
1. The appellant had preferred a Bail Application, Crl. M. (Bail) 278/2009 in which he claimed inter alia that he was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence. The Court had, therefore, ordered an enquiry under Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice Act, into this aspect. After lapse of almost two years, when the matter was taken-up, the Court noticed that the progress of enquiry was very slow and accordingly directed the appellant to be enlarged on bail by its order dated 28.07.2011 (in Crl. M. (Bail) 278/2009). The applicant was unable to furnish reduced surety for the sum of ` 2500/- and moved Crl. M.A. 10880/2011. In the meanwhile, pursuant to the previous directions, the Court received the report of the enquiry by the Trial Court dated 24.09.2011.2. The Appellant, along with a co-accused, was convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC, by the impugned judgment, dated 27-9-2004. We have considered the same and heard counsel for the parties.3. T...
Kalpana Pandey Vs. Director of Education and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-2011
1. The petitioner, a teacher in the respondent No.3 Air Force Bal Niketan Middle School, Vayusenabad, New Delhi-110 062, an aided School within the meaning of the Delhi School Education Act, 1971, has filed this petition for a direction to the respondents to restore back the petitioner to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) and or to appoint the petitioner to the said post with all consequential benefits. The writ petition was accompanied with an application for interim relief to restrain the respondents from filling up the vacancies to the post of TGT (English).2. Notice of the petition was issued and the appointments to be made by the respondents were made subject to further orders in the writ petition. Pleadings have been completed. Vide order dated 22.09.2010, the respondents were asked to clarify qua Annexure P-9 to the rejoinder of the petitioner. An additional affidavit in that regard has been filed by the respondent No.3 School and to which a response has been filed by t...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »