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.
Kishan Chand Sharma Vs. Union of India, Through Secretary, New Delhi a ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2011
BY DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY: 1. The applicant, an ex-Postal Assistant, has through this Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenged his penalty of dismissal. The OA seeks quashing and setting aside the impugned inquiry report dated 29.2.2008, the penalty order dated 25.6.2008 and the order of the appellate authority dated 22.1.2009 (Annex. A-1, A-2 and A-3 respectively). 2. The learned counsel, Shri S.K. Gupta, would appear for the applicant and the learned counsel, Shri Amit Anand, for the respondents. Further, on behalf of the applicant, written submissions dated 26.9.2011 have also been submitted. 3. A major penalty disciplinary proceeding had been initiated against the applicant under the CCS (CCA) Rule 14 vide the charge memorandum dated 15.4.2004 (Annex. A/4). The charges had pertained to the period 1998 to 2001 during which the applicant had been functioning as Sub Postmaster, Wazairpur Post Office, Delhi. The following Articles of...
Sukhpal at Sonu Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judged dated 9.12.2010 and the order of sentence dated 14.12.2010 by which the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment besides payment of fine.2. The prosecution's allegations briefly were that on the night of 17.5.2007, the appellant went to PS Shalimar Bagh; he claimed to be a resident of 9, Shalimar Bagh when he used to live with his wife Geeta. The Appellant was a tenant in the premises and used to work as a driver. He had married Geeta in the year 2000 and had two sons. The Appellant is further alleged to have said that on 16.5.2007 at about 06:00 PM, he returned home and did not find his wife. He is alleged to have become aware that she had gone to Sheeshmahal, Haiderpur, where he went in search of her, but could not find her. He returned later and found Geeta at home. The appellant is alleged to have enquired from...
Anil JaIn Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that FIR No.429/1999 dated 10.6.1999 under Section 39 and 44 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910, read with Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at Police Station Badli against the petitioner on the complaint of respondent No.2. Crl2. Further submits, the entire dues have been paid to respondent No.2 and thereafter the matter has been compromised between the parties. The respondent No.2 has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.3. Mr. Vikram Nandrajog, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has verified from his client that the total payment has been received. He has no objection if the present FIR is quashed since his client has resolved all the disputes for the said FIR.4. Keeping the statement of counsel for the respondent No.2 in view, the Criminal M.C. No.2439/2011 is allowed. The FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. CRL.M.A. 8815/20111. The stay application is infructuous.2. Dasti....
Munna Alias Manoj Vs. Ram Narain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
1. This revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958(in short 'the Act') has been filed by the petitioner- tenant against the order dated 11th February, 2011 passed by the Additional Rent Controller(West) whereby the eviction petition filed against him by his landlord, respondent herein, under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act to have the possession from him of one shop no. 6 on the ground floor of property no. WZ-297-C, Village Madipur, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'tenanted shop') has been allowed and he has been directed to vacate the tenanted shop.2. The relevant facts, as were pleaded by the respondent-landlord in para no. 18 of the eviction petition to secure an order of eviction against the petitioner-tenant, are re-produced below:"It is stated that the Petitioner is an ex service and is not doing any job and his son namely Hemant Yadav and daughter-in-law had already expired left behind two issues and the Petitioner has to maintain them als...
Royal Nepal Airlines Corporation Vs. Shrishti Properties Pvt Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
1. Order impugned before this Court is the order dated 13.08.2010 wherein the application filed by the tenant (Royal Nepal Airlines Corporation) seeking leave to defend in an eviction petition filed under Section 14 (1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) by the landlord (M/s Shrishti Properties Pvt. Ltd.) had been dismissed. This order is the subject matter of the present petition.2. Record shows that the landlord had purchased this property from its erstwhile owner Vijay Narain and Virender Narain Seth by a registered sale deed dated 25.09.1996; the respondent was a tenant on the ground floor of the suit premises i.e. premises bearing No. 44, Janpath, New Delhi; area under the possession of the tenant is about 3000 square feet; he is the tenant @ Rs.116/- per month; tenancy dates back to about 25 years. In the eviction petition the bonafide requirement pleaded by the landlord is that he wishes to start his business but because of paucity of accommodation he...
Harjinder Pal Singh Vs. Ravinder Singh Anand.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
1. A perusal of the record would show that the summon in Form 4 under Order XXXVII CPC were served upon the defendant on 9.1.2011.2. Neither any appearance nor any Vakalatnama on behalf of the defendant was filed. When the matter came up before the Joint Registrar on 21.2.2011, learned counsel for the plaintiff informed that a notice had been sent to him by Kulbhushan Mehta & Co. stating therein that appearance had been filed. Since neither any appearance nor any Vakalatnama in favour of Kulbhushan Mehta & Co. Advocates was on record, a notice was directed to be issued to Kulbhushan Mehta & Co. Thereafter, Vakalatnama in favour of Mr. B.S.Randhawa, Ms. Pukhraj and Mr. Atul Verma, Advocates, has been filed on 18.10.2011 and Ms. Pukhraj, Advocate, is present on behalf of the defendant.3. Ms. Pukhraj has with her a photocopy of what purports to be an appearance on behalf of the defendant. However, the copy which she has with her does not have any diary number and she is not in...
Gurdesh Vs. State of the Nct of Delhi.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
1. Instant petition has been filed from jail. The petitioner has submitted that vide order dated 08.09.2010 in Crl.M.C.2900/2010 this Court directed the prosecution viz, "The prosecution shall ensure that all the remaining witnesses are examined within two next dates as fixed by the Trial Court. The prosecution shall not be given any adjournment for conducting the evidence."2. Further submits that since more than one year has already passed and the petitioner has already completed more than 5 ½ years in custody.3. Vide instant petition, the petitioner has prayed as under:-"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may take a considerate view and pass appropriate orders directing the expeditious conclusion of the trial and disposal of the case on a day to day basis and preferably within a period of three (3) months in all."4. Ms.Rajdipa Behura, learned APP for State has filed the status report dated 02.11.2011, wherein it is mentioned that all the PWs of th...
D.K. Gupta Vs. Ravinder Kishore Sinha
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
1. This is a suit for recovery of declaration and recovery of Rs.25 lacs.2. The case of the plaintiff is that he had entered into an agreement dated 15.11.2005 with respect to purchase of second and third floor built upon plot No.1, Block No.E of East of Kailash, New Delhi from the defendant along with the proportionate share in the garage block including servant quarters for a total sale consideration of Rs.2.25 crores.3. It is further alleged that while executing the agreement, the defendant mis-represented to the plaintiff that he had legal and legitimate right to enter into the aforesaid agreement since he had already entered into an agreement with the actual owner of the property, i.e. Smt. Majula Bhushan and under that agreement, he had the lawful right to sell the second and third floor of the property to the plaintiff. On believing the false representation made by the defendant, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.11 lacs as earnest money which was duly acknowledged by the defendant...
Arun Kumar Bhatia and anr Vs. Vijay Kumar and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
1. Issue notice.2. Mr.Sanjiv Rajpal, Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1.3. With the consent of counsel for parties, matter is taken up for disposal.4. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 10.05.2010 and 02.11.2010 passed by learned ACMM; New Delhi.5. Mr.Sanjeev Sachdeva, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.1 filed a complaint case under Section 276 CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1981-82 against both the petitioners besides two other accused persons.6. Admittedly, both the petitioners were the directors at the relevant time in the company under the name and style of M/s.S. N. Bhatia & Company Private Limited. Shri S. N. Bhatia was and is the managing director of said company.7. The allegations against the accused persons are as under:-"3. That as per the information available on the record, during the previous year ending on 31-7-1980 and r...
Ms Jamuna Das Ram Kishan Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
1. In these references, the following questions have been referred to us for our opinion:-a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sales tax has been rightly imposed on the sales of cotton yarn amounting to Rs.34,67,657.83 under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi ?b) Whether the Tax imposed on cotton yarn under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi, is in accordance with law irrespective of the fact that no stage of imposition has been fixed under the said Act?c) Whether under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi, the tax imposed on cotton yarn without fixing the stage of imposition is in conformity with the provisions of Section 15 of the Central Sale Tax Act, 1956?d) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the tax imposed on cotton yarn declared to be of special importance under Section 14 of the Central S...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »