Delhi Court December 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.
Ashish Verma Vs. State and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2011
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl.M.C. 4142/2011 and Crl.M.A. 19221/2011 (Exemption) Date of Order: 13.12.2011 ASHISH VERMA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Vijay Pal Sharma, Advocate versus STATE and ANR ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for State Counsel for complainant (presence not given) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of FIR No.115/2011 registered at Police Station Rani Bagh under Section 420 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the complaint made to the police, it had opined the dispute to be of a civil nature and further that out of the 40 cheques, 33 were never presented in the bank, whereas eight cheuques were given by the respondent to third person namely Surender Garg who has also filed cases against the petitioner under Section 138 NI Act. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and lea...
Dr. R.S. Tyagi Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2011
By Dr. Veena Chhotray: 1. The applicant, who had been working as Deputy Director (Computer Facility) under AIIMS and was due to superannuate on 31.8.2010, has been imposed the penalty of “Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government”, by the impugned order dated 28.8.2010 (Annex.A). This is on the charge of sexual harassment and on the basis of an enquiry report by the Complaint Committee of AIIMS constituted for prevention of sexual harassment of women at workplace. Challenging the enquiry report dated 12.1.2010 along with the Memorandum dated 30.3.2010 forwarding a copy of this report to the delinquent official, as well as the penalty order dated 28.8.2010; the OA seeks the quashing of these orders/communications. Further directions for payment of all consequential benefits including pay, perks, all retiral dues including pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accrual ...
Ram Dev, Ex-constable Vs. Delhi Police Through the Commissioner of Pol ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2011
By Hon’ble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. Applicant has challenged order dated 4.9.2009 whereby he was dismissed from service (page 18) and order dated 6.4.2010 whereby his appeal was rejected (page 15). 2. The brief facts of the case are that applicant was served with summary of allegations. After recording the evidence of PWs, following charge was framed against the applicant:- “CHARGE I, Inspector, Krishan Kumar, EO/DE Cell hereby charge you Constable Ram Dev, No.7566/DAP (PIS No.28960671) that on the intervening night of 25/26.9.2007 from p PM to 7 AM, you along with Constable Ashwani, No.7523/DAP were detailed for UTP Guard Duty in Ward-2 ICU of DDU Hospital, New Delhi, where an UTP namely Rafal S/o andrzej was under admission. As per the statements of witnesses and persualofDDNo.8 1 and 82 dated 25.9.2007 lodged by HC Sadhu Ram No.7095/DAP and SI Raj Kumar respectively and DD No.3 dated 26.9.2007 lodged by Inspector K.C. Negi of DDU Guard Room it is clear that you...
Union of India and ors. Through the General Manager, New Delhi and Oth ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2011
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) 1. This application has been made for review of the order dated 24.10.2011 passed in OA-3857/2010. 2. The review applicants have stated the following grounds in support of the application:- (i) There was a mistake in applying Conditions No. a and c attached to Note-10 of Rule-7 (RS) RP Rules, 2008 whereas the Conditions which should have been appropriately applied are a and b. (ii) There was improper appreciation of the findings of the Ernakulam Bench in OA-1002/2010 dated 04.10.2011. In the case before the Ernakulam Bench, both the juniors and seniors were holding identical pay scale upto the level of promotion as Goods Driver whereas the facts are different in the present case. (iii) The Tribunal should have taken into consideration the facts and circumstances narrated by the respondents (review applicants) in their counter reply filed in the aforesaid O.A. (iv) The Tribunal should have taken into consideration the impact of running allowance earned by his...
Sh. Tilak Ram Sharma Vs. the Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Chief Secre ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2011
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) 1. The applicant has challenged the order dated 20.01.2010 of the Public Grievances Commission of the respondent government by which the complaint of the applicant about his grievance for not getting stepping-up-of-pay benefit at par with his junior Sh. Govind Singh was rejected. His prayer is to set aside this order and to give a direction that his pay should be stepped up to Rs. 9700/- w.e.f. 10.12.1996 and Rs.9900/- w.e.f. 01.01.1997 at par with his junior Sh. Govind Singh. 2. The applicant submits that he joined the service of the respondent government as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) on 29.08.1968 whereas Sh. Govind Singh joined on the same post on 24.12.1970. Both of them had reached the maximum of the senior scale of TGT; the applicant having got this maximum of Rs. 2900/- on 01.01.1996 and Sh. Govind Singh on 01.01.1993. Following implementation of 5th Pay Commission recommendation, the pay of the applicant was fixed at Rs. 9500/- and that of Sh. Go...
Ex-swr Girdhari Lal Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2011
BY CHAIRPERSON: 1. Petitioner by this petition has prayed to set aside the proceedings of Summary Court Martial held at Babina in March, 1983. He has also stated that he may be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. 2. Petitioner joined the Army through open selection. He was posted to 47 Armoured Regiment as a Swr. 3. It is stated that the petitioner was on guard duty at 2 Armd. Brigade Combined Officers Mess at Babina Cantt on the night of 26/27 July, 1983. The duty as per duty roster was from 2230 hrs to 0030 hrs and 0530 hrs to 0730 hrs. It is alleged that as per the chargesheet, during the course of duty the petitioner broke open the room of Maj. P.J.S. Sandhu of petitioners regiment in search of plunder at 2220 hrs and another charge was that he quitted the guard without leave and for this petitioner was tried by Summary Court Martial. 4. Prosecution examined about five witnesses and after recording their evidence and also the evidence of the petitioner, he was fo...
In the Matter of Vs. Uoi and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2011
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on : 12.12.2011 + W.P.(C) 8351/2011 and C.Ms. No.18882-83/2011 IN THE MATTER OF DHANWANTRI AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL and ANR. ..... Petitioners Through : Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Adv. versus UOI AND ANR ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Himanshu Bajaj, Adv. for R-1. Mr. T.K. Joseph, Adv. for R-2. CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL).1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners praying inter alia for quashing of the order dated 25.10.2011 passed by respondent No.1/UOI denying grant of permission to the petitioner/Institution for admitting students to the 50 seats in the BAMS (UG) Course for the academic year 2011-12, along with the inspection report dated 28/29.9.2011 prepared by the Central team appointed by respondent No.1/UOI based on which, the petitioner/Institution was denied permission..2. When this matter came up for admission on 28.11.2011, at the request of coun...
Customs Vs. Konan Jean
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2011
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl. Appeal No. 1098/2011 % Reserved on: 25th November , 2011 Decided on: 12th December, 2011 CUSTOMS ..... Appellant Through: Mr. P.C. Aggarwal, Adv. versus KONAN JEAN ..... Respondent Through: Mr. S.K. Sethi, Adv. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA.1. The Respondent was acquitted by the Learned Special Judge for offences punishable under Section 21, 22, 23 and 28 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (in short NDPS Act) by the impugned judgment dated 28th March, 2011. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment the Appellant preferred the leave to appeal petition which was granted vide order dated 20th August, 2011. The Learned Special Judge had directed the Respondent to furnish bond in terms of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. However, since the Respondent has not been able to furnish the bond, hence he is in custody. Thus, this appeal was taken up for hearing by this Court..2. Briefly the case of the prosecution is that on 13 th March, 2...
Jl Gugnani and anr Vs. Krishna Estate and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2011
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 12th December, 2011 + RFA(OS) 101/2011 JL GUGNANI and ANR ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Anil K.Kher, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Ankur Bansal, Advocate and Mr.Kundan Lal Gugnani, Director of appellant No.2 versus KRISHNA ESTATE and ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms.Mukta Sharma and Mr.V.C.Rishi, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral).1. As per report of process server, R-1 could not be served. R-2 and R-3 have been served. R-1 is a partnership firm, of which R-2 and R-3 are the partners. Since both partners of R-1 firm are served, it is apparent that even R-1 is served. Be that as it may, counsel as above appear for the respondents and state that the vakalatnama filed by them in the suit on behalf of the respondents who were the defendants in the suit empowers them to appear in all appellate proceedings pertaining to any order or decree passed in the suit. R...
Aniruddha Dutta and ors Vs. Bhawani Shankar Basu and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2011
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved On: December 02, 2011 Judgment Delivered On: December 12, 2011 + RFA(OS) 115/2011 ANIRUDDHA DUTTA and ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr.J.P.Sengh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.M.Qayamuddin, Advocate versus BHAWANI SHANKAR BASU and ORS. ....Respondents Through: Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Ajay Mehrotra and Ms.Namita Goel, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. GARG PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J..1. Two suits, CS(OS) No.2491/2009 and CS(OS) 163/2010 were filed seeking partition of property bearing Municipal No.66, Block B-4, Safdurjung Residential Area, Delhi, rendition of accounts, injunctions and declaration of decree dated 15.1.1976 as null and void. Appellants Aniruddha Dutta, Debashish Dutta and Arijit Dutta are the sons of late Ms.Mukul Dutta who was the daughter of late Ms.Nirod Bala Basu and appellant Debanjan Bishwas is the son of late Enakshmi RFA (OS) 115/2011 Page 1 of 15 Bishwas th...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »