Delhi Court February 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.
Smt. Poonam Chhabra Vs. Shri Madan Mohan Hasija
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may No. be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.3. Whether the judgment should be reported No. in Digest?1. This is a suit for partition, rendition of accounts and injunction. The plaintiff is the sister of the defendant, both of them being the children of late Shri Ram Lal Hasija and late Smt. Shanta Rani Hasija. It is alleged in the plaint that the ground floor of residential property bearing No.2/45, Geeta Colony, was purchased by the parents of the parties in the name of their father late Shri Ram Lal Hasija. The ground floor of property No.2/46, Geeta Colony, was purchased by them in the name of her mother late Smt. Shanta Rani Hasija. Property No.2/45 was occupied by the parents of the parties, whereas property No.2/46 was occupied by the defendant and his family. It is further alleged that Shop No.150 at Banarsi Dass Building, Main Market, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, was also purchased by late Shri Ram Lal Hasija ...
ifci Ltd. Vs. Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?1. IFCI and Bharat Steel Tubes seem to be having a running feud and are sparring on issues which could aptly be called shadow boxing; and unfortunately the match referee is not compelling them to fight the main bout. Colossal judicial time has been wasted by the shadow boxing rounds and with this preamble to our decision, we intend to close by putting both of them in the fighting ring and direct the referee to ensure that the actual boxing round commences; enough of shadow boxing has been resorted to by the two.2. Punjab National Bank had extended various credit facilities to Bharat Steel Tubes and as per IFCI Ltd. the debt stands assigned to it.3. Before the debt was assigned, Punjab National Bank had initiated recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Delhi for recovery of the dues.4. The claim filed ...
T.V.Gopalakrishnan and ors.Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? 1. The three writ petitioners are employed permanently with Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and the claim is for payment of house rent allowance (HRA) for the period reckoned 6 months' after their attachment with the Ministry of Home Affairs till they remained attached with the Ministry of Home Affairs.2. Whereas the claim of writ petitioner T.V.Gopalakrishnan and Ashwathachari has yet to be settled and money paid to him, K.Venkatesan was paid HRA @ ` 3,657/- per month from 23.12.2000 till 06.08.2004 i.e. 6 months after his attachment with the Ministry of Home Affairs and till he remained attached to the Ministry, which amount is sought to be recovered in 20 installments from the monthly salary paid to him.3. Learned counsel for the respondent in each case do not dispute that the claim of the petitioners that when...
Girdhari Lal Goomer and anr. Vs. P.P.Gambhir
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
1. Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be referred in the Digest? Yes1. The present revision petitions under section 25-B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short as "the Act") have been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13.10.2010 passed by Additional Rent Controller (for short as "the Controller") Delhi, whereby leave to defend/contest the eviction petition has been dismissed and an eviction order is passed under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25(B) of Act against the petitioner in respect of suit premises.2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioners are tenant in a shop admeasuring 15'X8' (120 sq.ft.) in property bearing No.E-3, Kalkaji, New Delhi at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. The said shop was originally taken on rent on lease from Shri Om Dutt Malik in the year 1955-56 and for the last 55 years th...
Hargovind Singh Vs. Central Industrial Security Force
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Petitioner seeks restoration of the 2nd financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme with effect from 3.11.1999 and seeks further 3rd financial upgradation with effect from 1.9.2008.3. As per the counter affidavit filed, 3rd financial upgradation benefit has been granted to petitioner with effect from 1.9.2008 and to this extent learned counsel for the petitioner states that a part from the cause pleaded in the writ petition has resolved itself in favour of the petitioner and thus this Court need not bother about said facts pleaded in the writ petition.4. As regards the first claim of the petitioner i.e. to be granted 2nd financial upgradation with effect from 3.11.1999, as per counter affidavit filed benefit thereof has been accorded but with effect from 15.2.2006.5. The undi...
Union of India and ors. Vs. Sh.Ved Prakash Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO the Digest?1. The petitioners, Union of India & Ors., have challenged the order dated 21st July, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.1098 of 2010, titled Ved Prakash Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. holding that the respondent had served a proper notice under Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 being eligible on 17th July, 2009 which attained finality and did not require any permission as the respondent was not under suspension and therefore, he is deemed to have retired on 18th October, 2009 and directing the petitioners to retire the respondent voluntarily w.e.f. 18th October, 2009 and granting all the pensionary benefits which are admissible to him as per rules.2. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 14th September, 2010 passed in R.A.No.243 of 2...
State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi) Vs. State of Haryana and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No be allowed to see the Judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest?1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for setting aside the orders dated 01.02.2011 and 10.02.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in a case arising out of FIR No.166/2010 registered with Police Station: Narnaud, Hissar, Haryana.2. The grievance of the petitioner/Govt. of NCT of Delhi is that in the aforesaid orders, the learned Sessions Court has directed issuance of a notification appointing the same Advocates appointed as Special Public Prosecutors by the Haryana Government to conduct the trial of case arising from FIR No.166/2010 in Delhi, and has ordered the personal presence of the Principal Secretary (Home), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, on 17.2.2011...
Union of India and ors. Vs. Smt. Usha Ghosh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
ORDER1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 25th November, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that late Mr. Udai Shankar Ghosh was working on an ex-cadre post and as per the extant policy for the purpose of calculating retirement benefits, the salary drawn in the parent cadre has to be the basis. It is accordingly submitted that the Tribunal has erred in directing the petitioners to calculate retirement benefits on the basis of emoluments that late Mr. Udai Shankar Ghosh was actually drawing at the time of his death.2. The facts of the present case do not justify interference with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated 25th November, 2010. Late Mr. Udai Shankar Ghosh was initially appointed as a Typist and was absorbed as Console Operator on 14th October, 1985. One Mr. Girdhar Gopal, junior to late Mr. Udai Shankar Ghosh was directed to be considered as Console Operator in the grade of 1600-2660 from due date with consequential benefit...
In the Matter Of: Lt. Cdr. K.K. Jha Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
1. The petition was originally filed in the Honble High Court on 04.12.2002. It was subsequently transferred to this Tribunal on its formation on 12.11.2009. 2. The petitioner/applicant vide this petition/ application has prayed for calling of records of the case and declaring the appointment of Performance Appraisal Review Board (PARB) dated 08.06.1988 as illegal, invalid, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of Navy Act, 1957 and Navy Order (Special) 3/90. The applicant has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to reconsider him for promotion w.e.f. May, 2000 on the basis of available confidential report without having been moderated by PARB and promote him if found suitable. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was commissioned in the Indian Navy in July, 1985. The applicant continued to get regular promotion and was promoted as a Lt. Commander in March, 1996. In May, 1996 the applicant was transferred to INS Ratnagiri as a Executive Officer. He wa...
Nitika Gauba Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?ORDER1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the Asha Gauba (mother-in-law), Kanika Gauba (nanad) and Shiv Kumar Gauba (Taya) on the ground that the learned ASJ while granting anticipatory bail had not appreciated the facts correctly. The respondent no.2 is the widowed mother in law of complainant, respondent no.3 is unmarried sister in law(husband's sister) of the complainant and respondent no.4 is the elder brother of deceased husband of respondent no.2 (Taya Sasur).2. In the complaint, the applicant had made allegations against the husband and these three respondents for harassing her for dowry. The learned ASJ while granting bail to them had considered that mother in law of complainant was a government servant in Ministry of Railways and was aged around 50 y...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »