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.
Vijay Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, New Del ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2011
MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) 1. None for the applicant even in the revised call. Perusal of the order sheet shows that on 19.10.2011 the case was listed for 24.11.2011 in the presence of applicant yet neither he is present nor any request is sent for adjournment which shows that he is not interested in pursuing the matter any longer. Accordingly, this O.A. is dismissed for default and non-prosecution....
Umesh Dutt Sharma Vs. Union of India Through General Manager, Western ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2011
MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) 1. Grievance of the applicant in this case is that selection for the post of JE-II under 25% LDCE quota was notified by the respondents on 07.01.2010. The written test was held on 15.06.2010 and result thereof was declared on 13.07.2010 (page 28A). However, applicant’s name did not figure there. Being aggrieved, applicant gave a representation dated 19.07.2010. In response to his representation, respondents issued a correction letter dated 21.07.2010 wherein applicant’s name was included in the list of selected candidates in the written examination by making it clear that this could not be taken as a selection. Thereafter, final select list was issued on 27.07.2010 (page 14) whereby four persons were declared as successful but applicant’s name was again not included in the said list. Applicant has challenged the said select list on the ground that he had done Diploma in Rail Transport and Management and had an additional qualification o...
D.M. Gautam Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretary, Railway Board, N ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2011
(ORAL) : Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman: 1. The applicant is aggrieved of some of his below benchmark ACRs, against which representation has also been dismissed. However, counsel for applicant, in all fairness, states that now since the appeals have been preferred against such orders and are still pending, it is appropriate, at this stage to direct the appellate authority to decide the appeals. 2. Without going into the merits of the controversy at this stage, we direct the Appellate Authority to deal with two appeals filed by the applicant against which representation for his below benchmark ACRs too has been dismissed, as expeditiously as possible and definitely within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. OA stands disposed of accordingly....
Sunil Kumar Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board Through Its ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2011
Hon’ble Shri George Paracken: 1. The issue raised in this OA has already been considered by this Bench in TA-72/2010 and connected cases decided on 18.11.2011. The operative part of the said order reads as under: “19.We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. In our considered view, since the Division Bench of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal (supra) has directed the Registry of the Apex Court to place the matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for constituting a Larger Bench, it will be in the fitness of things to adjourn this case sine die awaiting the decision of the Larger Bench to be so constituted. However, we make it clear that, if the decision of the Larger Bench when pronounced is in favour of the applicants, the respondents may, by themselves, grant relief sought by applicants in these Transfer Applications/Original Application.” 2. The aforesaid order will equally apply in the present ca...
Jai Bhagwan Sharma Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2011
The Petitioner by this petition has prayed that the Respondents be directed to pay the arrears towards disability element of the pension from 08.03.1975 till the date of representation i.e. 21.06.2002 as per the revised P.P.O. No. D/R/8465/76 dated 29.05.1976 along with interest @ 12%. He has also prayed that direct the Respondents that Petitioner is entitled to 75% + 30% disability in view of the certificates issued by AIIMS and Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and further direct payment of the accrued arrears in accordance with the disability percentage of the Petitioner from 21.06.2002 till the date of disposal of the present petition along with interest @ 12%. The Petitioner was enrolled in Navy in 1965 and he served the Navy till 1973. He had taken part in Indo Pak War in 1971. It is alleged that during the service, Petitioner suffered a head injury when there was a sudden burst of steam pipe with very high pressure and temperature...
Anghaila Housing Vs. Camaron Finance and Investment
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-2011
1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners who are defendants in a suit for declaration and injunction filed against them by the respondents-plaintiffs(hereinafter to be referred as ‘the plaintiffs’) and they are aggrieved by an order passed by the trial Court dismissing their application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed for the rejection of the plaint.2. The facts which are relevant for the disposal of this petition may be noticed at the outset. The petitioner no. 1 Company, M/s Anghaila Housing Pvt. Ltd., which was impleaded as defendant no.1 in the suit and reference to which shall hereinafter be made as ‘the defendant Company’, was floated by two persons who were its promoter Directors as well as the only subscribers to its Articles of Association and were having one share each. With the passage of time the issued and subscribed share capital of the defendant Company kept on increasing with more and more persons b...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ms Fizz Drinks Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-2011
1. These two appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) arise out of the common judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 15.09.2004 passed in ITA No 1242/Del/1997 and ITA No 5266/Del/1998 pertaining to the Assessment Years 1993-1994 and 1995-1996 respectively. The question which arises for consideration in these appeals is as under:-"Whether in the cases where the premises are not regulated by the Delhi Rent Control Act, the reasonable annual letting value of the property for purposes of Section 23 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be determined with reference to the standard rent determinable under the Rent Control Act?"2. The facts in brief are that the assessee had entered into a lease agreement on 31.01.1990 for letting out 19 flats having a covered area of 16,236 sq. ft. to Usha India Ltd. The assessee charged rent at the rate of rupee 1 per sq. ft. The same came to ` 1,94,832/- per annum. The lessee was also required...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ms Fizz Drinks Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-2011
1. These two appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) arise out of the common judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 15.09.2004 passed in ITA No 1242/Del/1997 and ITA No 5266/Del/1998 pertaining to the Assessment Years 1993-1994 and 1995-1996 respectively. The question which arises for consideration in these appeals is as under:-"Whether in the cases where the premises are not regulated by the Delhi Rent Control Act, the reasonable annual letting value of the property for purposes of Section 23 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be determined with reference to the standard rent determinable under the Rent Control Act?"2. The facts in brief are that the assessee had entered into a lease agreement on 31.01.1990 for letting out 19 flats having a covered area of 16,236 sq. ft. to Usha India Ltd. The assessee charged rent at the rate of rupee 1 per sq. ft. The same came to ` 1,94,832/- per annum. The lessee was also required...
Unknown Vs. Delhi High Court Bar Association and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-2011
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.2. Application stands disposed of.CS(OS) 2883/2011 & IA.No.18525/2011 (u/O.39 Rs-1 & 2 CPC)3. Issue summons in the suit and notice in the application. Learned counsel for the defendants accept summons in the suit and notice in the application.4. A member of the Executive Committee of Delhi High Court Bar Association (hereinafter referred as "DHCBA") has knocked the doors of this court for justice. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the Executive Committee of DHCBA had passed a resolution dated 08.01.2010 and the minutes of the resolution were ratified by the Executive Committee of DHCBA in its meeting held on 12.04.2010. The resolution passed on 17.05.2010 was ratified in the meeting held on 13.09.2010. The defendants in its meeting held on 21.09.2011 by way of agenda at item no.2 comprehensively discussed and passed amendments in the guidelines and modalities for holding elections and amongst many other decisions the minutes of the me...
Bhura Singh Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-2011
1. The appellant has challenged his conviction in Sessions Case No.115 of 2003, titled as „State v. Bhura’, arising from the FIR No.350 of 2003, under Sections 323/325/ 342/ 354/ 387/ 376 Indian Penal Code, PS Anand Vihar convicting the appellant under Sections 376, 326, 342 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing the appellant to undergo rigorous life imprisonment under Section 376 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three years. The appellant was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that Ms.Rinchu, the prosecutrix was working as a Private Nurse/Attendant, in Shanti Mukund Hospital, situated within the bounds of Police Station Anand Vihar. At the time of incident she was engaged to look after Sh. S.K. Kaushik, an aged patient, in room No. 208, which is situated on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »