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.
Ram Pratap Singh Nayyar and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in Digest?1. These four suits are filed against Municipal Corporation of Delhi seeking possession of land, recovery of money and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from constructing drain on the area alleged to be in their unauthorized occupation.2. The land forming subject matter of Suit No. 234/2011 is underneath built up property measuring 150 sq. yards, bearing No.WZ-403, situated in the area of Khayala Abadi Kanhiya Park alias Chand Nagar, New Delhi. The land forming subject matter of Suit No. 235/2011 is underneath built up property measuring 150 sq. yards, bearing No.WZ-1, Plot No.3, situated Vishnu Garden, New Delhi. The land forming subject matter of Suit No. 236/2011 is underneath built up property measuring 100 sq. yards, bearing No.WZ-412, situated at Chand Nagar, New Delhi. The land forming subject...
Raj Kumar and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2011
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. It is not in dispute that deceased Sunder was married to Lal Chand and was residing with her husband and her mother- in-law Laxmi in the matrimonial house at 16/280 Trilokpuri, Delhi and that at around 11:20 PM i.e. near midnight on 27.6.1995, suffered grievous burn injuries when she was in her matrimonial house and was removed to LNJP Hospital by her husband Lal Chand and was admitted at the casualty of the hospital at 11:50 PM.2. Of the 4 accused sent for trial, it is not in dispute that Lal Chand @ Vinod was the husband of Sunder and Laxmi was her mother-in-law. There is a dispute whether or not the other 2 accused, Raj Kumar and his wife Krishna Devi, who as per the prosecution were the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased, were as a matter of fact so related. There is also a dispute whether the 2 r...
Pawan Kumar and ors Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2011
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO in the Digest?1. The 16 petitioners, being the students of the respondent No.4 Army College of Medical Sciences, have preferred this petition inter alia for a declaration that they are not liable to pay the annual fee of `3,00,000/- demanded from them but are liable to pay the same fee as being paid by the wards of Armed Forces Personnel i.e. `1,50,000/- per annum. Notice of the petition was issued and vide interim order dated 10 th November, 2009 which continues to be in force, the petitioners were permitted to pay the fee of `1,50,000/- only. The pleadings have been completed. The counsels have been heard.2. What emerges is, that it was the stand of the respondent No.4 College that it was meant only for imparting education only to wards of Armed Forces Personnel. However, certain writ petitions came to be filed in this Co...
Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd Vs. Hamburg Bulk Carriers
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2011
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes 1. This Appeal assails the Order dated 22.10.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge, which, in effect, rejected the Appellant's plea predicated on Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Although it has not been specifically stated so, the effect of the Order is that the Objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C; Act for short) preferred by the Appellant before us, stand dismissed. All the eventualities that would arise on an interplay between Section 34 of A&C; Act and Section 5 and Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 have been considered by the Division Bench in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs- Haryana Telecom Ltd., 2010 VII AD (Delhi) 331 and Executive Engineer vs- Shree Ram Construction Co., 2010 X AD(Delhi) 180. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, the Court noted tha...
Mrs. Prerna Vs. Govt of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2011
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? yes1. Rule D.B.2. With the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.3. Respondent no. 3 had advertised 1204 vacancies (UR 563, OBC 307, SC 185 and ST 149) for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) in MCD under Post Code 57/06 vide its Advertisement No. 03/2006. The petitioner had applied for the said post and appeared in the examination conducted by respondent no. 3 in the month of March, 2007 for appointment in the schools under the overall control of respondent no. 2. Petitioner appeared as a candidate of unreserved category (UR).As per amended recruitment rules, the age limit prescribed for the aforesaid post was 20-27 years whereas as per unamended Recruitment Rules, the age limit prescribed was 32 years for male and 42 years for female candidates. There was no lower age limit prescribed...
Vijay Ram Srivastava Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2011
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may Yes 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 petitioner has challenged the order dated 25th August, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A No.131/2010 titled as Vijay Ram Srivastava v. Union of India and Ors, dismissing the original application seeking quashing of charge sheet dated 30th September, 2008, the penalty order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 9th October, 2009 and order dated 7st January, 2010 passed by the appellate authority and transfer order dated 26th November, 2008 transferring the petitioner to the Lucknow division and the major penalty imposed on the petitioner reducing his pay with cumulative effect from Rs.17,290/- in the grade of Rs.9300- 34800+4200 to Rs.5200/- in the grade of Rs.5200-20,200/- up to his retirement.2. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the dispu...
Rishi Prakash Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?ORDERCM No. 13264/20101. For the reasons contained in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of accordingly.By the impugned order and judgment dated 5th April, 2010, learned Single Judge noticed the contradictory findings recorded in the two separate proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) and Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(Act for short). The Industrial Tribunal in its order dated 4th July, 2001, in the application under Section 33(2)(b), had held that the enquiry officer had not provided opportunity to the workman to establish his case. The workman was denied opportunity to establish his defence by way of cross-examination of the witnesses of the management and also from the service record maintained by the management. The preliminary issue framed wa...
Phool Singh Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?ORDER1. The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 9th December, 2009 dismissing the OA No. 155/2008 filed by the petitioner Phool Singh.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in failing to notice that the disciplinary authority had disagreed with the report of the enquiry officer but without disagreement note and explanation from the petitioner, it has been held that the medical certificates produced by the petitioner were doubtful and should not be accepted. It is submitted that the charge of misconduct and willful absence, thus, was not proved or established.3. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is dated 9th December, 2009 and the present writ petition was filed in January, 2011. There is no explanation for the delay and latches of more than one year...
Brigadier B.C.Rana Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
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. This is a second round fought by Brigadier B.C.Rana, who desires an Auto Transmission Maruti Zen Car to be allotted to him under a scheme for disabled Army Officers.2. The scheme upon which he places reliance was promulgated on 18.11.1996 and as per which serving officers who had become disabled or who became paraplegic during various operations, including counter insurgency operations were eligible to apply for being selected for allotment of a disabled friendly motor vehicle.3. Being commissioned in the Indian Army in December 1969 and having participated in the Indo-Pak War in the year 1971, during the war, petitioner incurred a disability of 'Amputated Symes Lt.' i.e. amputation below knee; left side.4. The scheme in question was not unlimited in the largesse to be distributed. As a one-time measure, only 18 car...
Rajiv Goela and anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes 1. The prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to quash a demand of Rs.53,39,816/- raised in a sale permission letter dated 15 th January, 2009 issued by the Respondent Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as `DDA). The Petitioners seek a direction to the DDA to re-issue a revised sale permission letter with the demand calculated on the basis of rates prevalent on 24th March, 1978 in the areas adjoining the area in which the property in question, that is at B-334, New Friends Colony, is situated.2. In relation to the property in question, the DDA executed a lease deed on 2nd July, 1974 in favour of Shri D.N. Sharma for an amount of Rs.24,096.14. Thereafter the father of the Petitioners, Shri Shyam Shankar Goela entered into an agreement to sell dated 24th March, 1978 with one Shri D.N. S...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »