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.
Sh. Manoj Kumar Vs. Govt. of Nct Through the Chief Secretary, Delhi an ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2011
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) 1. The applicant who was a Jail Warder with the respondents was charge sheeted on 25.06.2008 for absenting himself from duty unauthorizedly without intimation or approval for different spells of time from 05.08.2007 till the date of issuance of the charge sheet. He submitted his reply on 30.07.2008 stating that his absence on different occasions was on medical ground and due to circumstances beyond his control. An inquiry was conducted ex-parte, where he did not participate in spite of many notices. The Inquiry Officer (IO) held him guilty of the charge. A copy of the inquiry report was given to him, but he chose to ignore it. The Disciplinary Authority (DA), in consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case imposed the impugned penalty of removal from service. The applicant filed an appeal which was disposed of by the Appellate Authority (AA) in its order dated 26.08.2010 where the whole service record of the applicant was taken into considera...
Some Nath Ghosh Vs. Union of India Through Ministry of Science Technol ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2011
(ORAL) Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman: 1. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the respondents have taken a preliminary objection as regards jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain and decide this Original Application. It is the case of the respondents that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction as the National Research Development Corporation is not notified under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985. 2. In view of the objection raised by the respondents, Mr. Ashish Mohan, learned counsel for applicant seeks permission to withdraw this Original Application with liberty to the applicant to seek the relief(s) as asked for in the present OA before appropriate forum. 3. With leave and liberty, as prayed for, present Original Application is dismissed as withdrawn....
isni Electric Power Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2011
1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Ministry of Power/respondent no.2 and the Ministry of Coal/respondent no.3 to place the case of the petitioner in the Standing Linkage Committee (SLC) meeting for issuance of an order granting coal linkage to the petitioner.2. The case of the petitioner is that it proposed to set up a 4000 mega watt thermal power plant in two phases at Chitrangi, Distt. Singrauli through 100% foreign investment. The petitioner obtained various approvals and permissions, such as approval of Ministry of Environment and Forest and the Central Water Commission (CWC). The petitioner submits that the power plant of the petitioner was expected to be set up in the 11th plan at the pithead of a coal mine.3. Respondent no.2 granted in-principle coal linkage for the petitioners project vide their letter dated 20.11.2003. The coal for the thermal power project w...
Ram Saroop Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2011
1 Vide this common judgment, both the above mentioned Criminal Revision Petitions being taken up for disposal.2 Vide the instant petitions, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 27.04.2011 and Charge dated 13.07.2011.3 Mr.Vikrant Dhama, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the Court has passed the impugned order on charge considering the settled law into view that the court has power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against accused has been made out.4 The facts of case in brief is that in March, 1995, Durga Finance Limited purchased 7,54,900 shares of RIL at a price of Rs.10/- per share and at a premium of Rs.50/- per share, amounting Rs.4,52,94,000/- . In May, 1995, the Durga Finance Ltd. was allotted the above said Shares. In November, 1997, Durga Finance Ltd. made a complaint to SEBI, that RIL has not delivered the shared to them. On 04.09.1998, Sh. Mangi Lal Aggarwal and Smt. Parwati Aggarwal,...
Bacha Ram Vs. State Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2011
1. The Appellant has impugned a judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated 18-12-2010, and the order dated 21-12- 2010, in SC No. 122/2010, convicting him to undergo life imprisonment, and also pay fine.2. Briefly, the prosecution alleged that the police received intimation, through DD No. 4A on 30-9-2003, about a murder, of a woman Kusum (hereafter referred to by her name or as "the deceased"). They went to the spot, i.e. H. No. 18, L-Extension, Rama Park Road, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, and found that her husband had run away, after killing her. The Additional SHO too reached the spot, and found Kusum lying dead, and considerable bleeding from her nose and mouth. Kusum had married the Appellant on 20-06-2002; however, they had a strained family life. The SDM was called, as well as the Crime team; the crime team got the scene photographed, and also examined the scene and conducted inquest proceedings. The police recorded the statement of Krishna @ Babby, the de...
Vf Services (Uk) Limited Vs. Union of India and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2011
1. This is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) by VF Services (UK) Limited having its office in London seeking a stay of the operation of a letter dated 8th August 2011 issued by the Embassy of Government of India at Netherlands, terminating the Visa Outsourcing Contract [‘VOC’] dated 26th November 2010 entered into between the Embassy of India, The Hague, Respondent No. 2 herein. 4. At the hearing on 3rd October 2011 learned counsel for the Respondent placed reliance on certain additional documents which had not been placed along with the reply. While adjourning the case to enable the Petitioner to respond to the said documents, this Court ordered the termination notice would not take effect till the next date.2. The relevant facts are that in terms of the VOC dated 26th November 2010 the Petitioner was to provide range of services at three locations i.e., The Hague, Amsterdam and Rotterdam. These included distribu...
Prem Prakash and ors Vs. State and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2011
1 Notice issued.2 Mr. Navin Sharma, learned APP for State and Mr. Mohan Sharma, Advocate accept notice on behalf of respondent No.1/State and respondent No.2/complainant.3 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR No. 490/2009, a case under Section 498A/406/34 IPC was registered at P.S. Jahangirpuri, Delhi against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No. 2/complainant.4 It is further submitted that the parties have amicably settled the matter and the marriage between petitioner No.1/husband and respondent No.2/wife has been dissolved amicably vide a decree of mutual consent.5 Respondent No. 2 is personally present in the court. She has been duly identified by IO/SI Anil Kumar. 6 Mr. Mohan Kumar, Advocate/counsel for respondent No.2 submits on her instructions that she does not want to pursue the case further as all her claims qua the aforesaid FIR have been satisfied and she has no objection if the present FIR is quashed. 7 Learned APP for State submits that t...
Pk Gupta and anr Vs. Ess Aar Universal Pvt Ltd and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2011
1. A suit, under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, was filed by the respondent against M/s.Prestige H.M.Poly Containers Ltd. (respondent No.2) and its Managing Director and Director respectively i.e. appellants No.1 and 2. Decree prayed for was in sum of `20,40,023/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Forty Thousand and Twenty Three only). It had four elements:- (i) Principal Amount covered by 5 cheques exhibits P-5 to P-9 each in the sum of `2,90,495/- i.e. `14,52,475/-; (ii) service charges as per lease agreement Ex.P-1: `5,79,048/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand and Forty Eight only); (iii) expenses towards legal notice: `7,700/- (Rupees Seven Thousand and Seven Hundred only); and (iv) bank charges: `800/- (Rupees Eight Hundred only). Liability sought to be enforced was stated to be joint and several.2. The suit was instituted on 28th June 1997 and after a protracted battle, leave to defend was granted to the appellants and respondent No.2 upon the condition that the appellan...
Manohar Singh and Sons Vs. Ms Sandeep Coop. Group Housing Sons and anr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2011
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration declaring that the compensation levied by defendant No.2 vide his letter dated 12.01.2000 is illegal and a decree of permanent injunction permanently restraining the defendants from recovering the amount of Rs.3306440/- from the plaintiff.2. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff is a partnership firm and defendant No.1 is a co-operative society and defendant No.2 is the architect of defendant No.1 society who takes care of execution of construction work.3. It is averred in the plaint that defendant No.1 invited tenders for construction of 218 flats and basement parking at plot No.35, Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi. On 15.06.1991, plaintiff filled the tenders in the tenders and deposited Rs.2 lac as security by a pay order. When the tender was opened, plaintiff turned out to be the successful bidder and on 03.07.1991 the plaintiff was awarded the work at a negotiable amount of Rs.6,71,28,677/-. Thereafter, a writt...
Queen Mary
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2011
1. The Petitioners in these two writ petitions (one in WP 2845/1992 and four in WP 4291/1993), claim to be minority educational institutions, established and administered by Christian denominations, which fall within the expression "minority" in terms of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner institutions have established schools, in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. These schools are regulated by the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 ("the Act"); and Rules framed under the Act (hereafter "the Rules").2. The Petitioners claim to be aggrieved by what they term as intrusions into their power to administer, according to their choice, the educational institutions that they have established. It is alleged that amendments to the Rules, notified in 1990, have the effect of making impermissible inroads into the autonomy guaranteed and guarded by Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The offending provisions include the power of the authorities to frame and promulga...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »