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.
Ved Ram Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, Through Its Chairman
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-2011
BY DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY: 1. The Applicant had superannuated from service as Deputy Manager (Traffic) on 31.8.2001. Through the instant OA, he is agitating claims for grant of pensionary benefits under the DTC Pension Scheme of 27.11.1992. Through this OA, the following reliefs are sought:- “A. Direct the Respondents to release the pension to the Applicant with effect from 01.9.01 and all other pensionary benefits with interest @ 12% p.a. compounded annually. B. Direct Respondent to pay pension to the Applicants month by month. Any other order(s) the Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit be also passed.” 2. Learned counsels, Shri S.N. Sharma and Shri N.K. Singh for Mrs Avinash Ahlawat would represent the applicant and the respondent respectively. 3. The brief factual matrix of the case is that the applicant was initially appointed in the year 1961 as a Conductor under the DTC. After series of promotions, he reached upto the level of Deputy Manager (Traffic) from where he superannua...
Krishan Chander Vs. Dda
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2011
1. Rohini Residential Scheme 1981 has been a source of fertile litigation in this Court. DDA bit more than what it could chew. It did not limit the number of applicants under the scheme and as a result nearly 1,20,000 applicants found themselves registered under the scheme as per which DDA became obliged to allot a plot of land to each applicant as per priority position assigned to each applicant; the land to be allotted as and when acquisitions were complete and development completed.2. The appellant applied under the scheme. Finding his application to be in order, DDA assigned priority number to the applicant and on 1st-5th September 2003 issued a demand- cum-allotment letter demanding premium in sum of `7,18,872/- payable in installments. The appellant paid the first installment within time but defaulted in payment of the second and the third, which were deposited with a delay of one year resulting in DDA cancelling the allotment.3. W.P.(C) No.13302/2005 was filed against the allotm...
Ms Jga Fasion Private Limited Vs. Krishan Kumar Khanna and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2011
I.A. No.13751/2011 (u/s 151 CPC, by the defendants), I.A. No.15786/2011 (u/s 151 CPC for modification of order dated 20.05.2011, by the plaintiff),I.A. No.17304/2011 (u/o 1, R.10 CPC by applicant M.S.Ghai) and I.A. No.17305/2011 (for exemption, by applicant M.S.Ghai)1. The parties have addressed their submissions on the above-mentioned applications.2. Firstly, I shall take up the application being I.A. No.15786/2011 filed by the plaintiff, M/s JGA Fashion Private Limited, for modification of order dated 20.05.2011.3. The above-mentioned suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking the decree of specific performance to renew the lease deed dated 02.08.2004 in respect of the property situated at 10189/92, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi, for a further period of four years, and for injunction. Another suit bearing CS(OS) No.1773/2010 was filed by the defendants for possession. On 19.05.2011 when both the suits were listed before the Court, the parties and their counsels appeared and agreed ...
Ms Hrd Corporation Vs. Gail (India) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2011
1. The petitioner a Company registered under the laws of the State of Texas, USA having its principal office at 1459, Minetta, Houston, Texas 77035, has filed the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as - the Act) for appointment of a substitute arbitrator as per Rule 11(12) read with Rule 10 of the ICADR rules in place of Late Mr. Justice N.N. Goswamy (Retd) in Arb. P. No.33/2007 - ICADR and Arb. P. No.38/2010 - ICADR and also praying that the remaining members of the said Tribunal be allowed to continue in office.2. The petitioner is engaged in refining and dealing amongst others in HDPE Wax, a byproduct of an HDPE/LLDPE plant in Petro Chemical Complex a downstream product of crude oil and higher fractions of Natural Gas, in USA and other parts of the world using its own technology.3. Respondent is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of dealing with natural gas and d...
Glaverbel S.A. Vs. Dave Rose and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2011
IA No. 12535/2011 (u/Sec. 151 CPC by Plaintiff)1. By way of present application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC for short), plaintiff seeks following three reliefs:-"(i) Certified copy of order dated 10th September, 2009 passed by this Court in CS(OS) No. 593/2007 be taken on record;(ii) Permit the claim so amended as claim in the present suit;(iii) Plaintiff be permitted to place on record the certified copy of amended patent no. 190380 as and when received from the patent office."2. Briefly stated facts of the case, relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present application, are that the plaintiff has filed this suit, inter alia, for permanent injunction to the effect that the defendants be restrained from manufacturing, selling and offering for sale copper free mirrors amounting to infringement of the plaintiff’s patent registered under registration No. 190380. It is alleged that the plaintiff invented/developed and got patented "Mirox New Gene...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Afsar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2011
1. W.P.(C) No.2300/2011 filed by the respondents has been allowed vide order dated 6.4.2011 and MCD has been directed to de-seal the ground floor of property No.973/31, Jafrabad, Delhi, which was sealed on account of the alleged reason that cow meat was being sold from the premises in question and for which an FIR for having committed offences punishable under Sections 278/295A/429/34 IPC read with Sections 4/8/12/13 of the Delhi Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act 1994 was registered against the respondents. Review sought of the order dated 6.4.2011 has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 6.7.2011.2. The learned Single Judge has held that no power is vested in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957 to seal any property on account of an unauthorized user thereof, a finding which we have no hesitation in setting aside for the reason the issue is no longer res integra. Interpreting Section 345A which empowers the Commissioner of Municipal ...
Aas Mohd. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2011
1. Vide impugned judgment dated 3.3.1999 the learned Trial Judge, in para 21 of the impugned decision, with reference to the evidence led has opined that following circumstances stand established:-(i) On 25th of June, 1995 (in the morning hours) dead body of an unknown person was found lying in front of the house of witness Mustfa. (ii) There was an incised stab wound over the back of the dead body.(iii) The dead body was smeared with blood.(iv) Blood trails led the police party to H.No.B-248, Gali No.2, Indra Vihar, Delhi.(v) There was blood spot inside the house.(vi) There was blood on the door of the house.(vii) Wooden piece Ex.P.1 was recovered from the said house.(viii) There was blood of 'A' group on the said wooden piece.(ix) That the said house belonged to the accused.(x) Exhibits were lifted from the spot as well as from the house of the accused.(xi) On 26.6.1995, accused was arrested.(xii) Shirt Ex.P.4 having blood stains of 'A' group was seized from him, which he was we...
State Vs. Satya Parkash
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2011
1. The State has filed the instant petition, while challenging the order dated 15.05.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the respondent has been admitted to regular bail.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.01.2009, a case under Section 3 (2) (4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred as to ‘MCOC Act’) was registered at the police station Nand Ngari, Delhi vide FIR No.9/2009, against respondent after obtaining sanction from the Joint Commissioner of Police vide its order dated 09.01.2009, pursuant to the proposal sent by Inspector Satish Kumar, SHO police station Nand Nagari dated 05.12.2008. In the said proposal, six FIRs were referred to, starting from the year 2007 to 2008 against the respondent for obtaining the approval from the Joint Commissioner of police. The particulars of the six FIRs are as follows:-a) u/S 25 of Arms Act registered at PS Nand Nagari vide FIR No.144/2007.b) u/S 307/506/34 IPC r/w...
Gautam Kumar Verma Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2011
1. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that vide FIR no. 334 dated 10.10.2011, a case Under Section 365 Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been registered against the petitioner on the complaint respondent no. 2 at PS-Nazafgarh. .2. Further submits that the said FIR has been registered on the complaint of the brother of the girl namely Prakash.3. Further submits that the Petitioner got married on 07.10.2011 at Arya Samaj Vedic Marriage Mandal, 2115, Jamuna Bazar, Delhi. The certificate of the same is Annexed herewith as Annexure P-4.4. Further submits that the petitioner never abducted the sister of respondent no. 2. Therefore, present FIR may be quashed.5 Learned APP for State fairly conceded that since the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 has been taken place and both of them are major, in the interest of justice instant FIR may be quashed.6 Respondent No. 3, who is personally present in the court states that she has married the petitioner on his own sweet will withou...
Ranjit Singh Bisht and Others Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, Mi ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2011
V.K. BALI, CHAIRMAN: 1. Ranjit Singh Bisht and ten others have filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking to quash the recruitment rules known as SSB (Secretarial) Service, 2006, framed for civilian ministerial cadre, enforced vide notification dated 20.11.2006, for Group “B” (Gazetted and Non-Gazetted) ministerial posts. They also seek a direction to be issued to the respondents to maintain status quo till finalization of SLP pending in the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v Sukesh Kumar Nayak, and further to direct the respondents to follow the existing Rules of 1975. 2. We will give facts hereinafter, but we may mention that whereas under the rules known as DGS (Secretariat) Services Rules, 1975 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules of 1975), a civilian ministerial cadre UDC would be eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant after having put in five years service as UDC, in the new rules known ...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »