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.
Union of India and ors. Vs. Harcharan Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
1. The petitioners, Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway & Ors., have challenged the order dated 4th June, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.1915 of 2010, titled 'Harcharan Singh & Others v. Union of Indian & Ors.' directing the petitioners to consider the prayer of the respondents to grant the increments between the intervening period from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement in the light of the Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated 25th September, 2007 which was upheld by the Supreme Court and if the respondents are found to be similarly situated, then the same benefit be extended to them.2. The respondents had filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal contending inter-alia that they were amongst those who were dismissed by the petitioners for participating in the General Railways Employees Strike (Locomen Strike) in 1981. According to the respondents, they were r...
Abaskar Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pakistan International Airlines
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in Digest?1. This is a suit for mandatory injunction and recovery of Rs.69,84,900/-. The defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of flat No.102, Kailash Building, 26 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001. The premises to the defendant were let out vide lease deed dated 31st December, 1996, which was registered on 2 nd January, 1997. The case of the plaintiff is that under the terms of the lease deed, particularly Clauses 4(ix) and 5(i) thereof, the increase, if any, in the house tax was to be borne by the defendant. On receipt of bills for the assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 for Rs.93,936/-, 93,936/- and 1,17,420/- respectively, the plaintiff demanded the aforesaid amounts from the defendant . The increase in amount of house tax for the year 1999-2000 was duly paid by the defendant. However...
M/S Sancheti Appliances Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S D.K. Electricals and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers Yes. may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes.3. Whether the judgment should be Yes. reported in the Digest?1. This common order will dispose of pending temporary injunctions in the four suits.2. The facts necessary for disposing of this order are that the plaintiff in all the four cases is M/S SANCHETI APPLIANCES PVT. LTD. (hereinafter referred to as "Sancheti"). In CS(OS) No.1529/2006 Sancheti sues M/s D.K. Electricals (hereafter referred to as "D.K.") for alleged passing off in respect of trade mark "PRETTY" used for electrical appliances such as sockets, switches and other allied products. D.K. in turn preferred a counter claim alleging that it is the proprietor of the registered trademark "PRETTY" since 2004.3. In CS(OS) No.1530/2006 Sancheti sues M/S J.K. ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES (hereafter referred to as "J.K.") complaining of passing off in respect of trademark "WINNER" used for marketing electrical appli...
Peoples Union for Democratic Rights and Others Vs. Union of India and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
ORDER1. This Court on earlier occasion had directed personal presence of competent authorities of certain organizations. In pursuance of the earlier order, Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Labour Commissioner-cum- Secretary of the Board, Mr. Virender Prasad, General Manager (HR), DIAL, Mr. D. Sarkar, Secretary, DDA, Mr. K.S. Mehra, Commissioner, MCD, Mr. Santosh Vaid, Secretary, NDMC and Mr. N.K. Prasad, Chief Labour Commissioner, Union of India are present.2. At the commencement of the hearing, Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva, learned Standing Counsel for Union of India has given a chart relating to the number of establishments, number of contractors, who have submitted the records, number of workers involved and the number of contractors, who have not submitted the records and details of defaulting contractors and the action taken. For the sake of convenience, we incorporate the first page of the chart:- SI Name No. of No. of No. of No. of Detail of Remark No of P.E. Notices Contractors Workers Contractor...
Sardar Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner Delhi and ors.
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? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest?1. The petition impugns the order dated 13th December, 2007 of the Financial Commissioner dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. The petition came up before this court first on 14th January, 2008 when the petitioner made a statement that the petitioner, though in the writ petition has challenged but was not challenging the order insofar as with respect to 12 Bighas 18 Biswas of land which had vested in the Gaon Sabha. Notice of the petition was issued on other aspects only and status quo in respect of Khasra Nos.28/13(2-8) and 28/14(2-8) and post consolidation of Khasra Nos.154/874(2-2) and 154/875 (2-2) directed to be maintained. The said interim order has continued in force.2. Pleadings h...
Braham Parkash @ Babloo Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Order? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the Order should be reported in the Digest? Yes1. This is an Appeal against the judgment dated 22.09.2001 whereby the Appellant was held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (the Code) and order of sentence dated 25.09.2001 whereby the Appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.2. This case was registered on the basis of the statement of Ms. Seema, daughter of the deceased Suraj Mal. According to the prosecution version Seema (PW-1) was a student of 10th standard. Braham Prakash @ Babloo (the Appellant) was her neighbour, living in a rented room. For about a month prior to the incident the Appellant started teasing Seema and would also follow her. The Appellant also expressed his desire to marry Seema as he was in love with her. According to the prosecution in spite of refusal by Seema, to agree to such exp...
State Bank of Patiala Vs. S.K. Mathur
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 the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes1 This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2009 which has endorsed the findings of the trial Judge dated 08.05.2009 wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff i.e State Bank of Patiala seeking recovery against two defendants had been dismissed.2 The short dispute is as follows:-The plaintiff had filed a recovery suit of Rs.1,56,872.40 paise against two defendants of whom defendant No. 1 was the principal debtor and defendant No. 2 was the guarantor. This was a composite suit which had been filed by the plaintiff against both the defendants. In the course of proceedings, it was brought to notice that defendant No. 1 had expired on 18.10.2005; on 08.02.2007 orders were passed that the suit filed by the plaintiff stands abated qua defendant No. 1. A perusal of the order dated 08.02.2007 shows ...
Dda Karamchari Morcha (Regd.) and anr. Vs. D.D.A. and Others
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? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest?1. The petitioner is a union of non-technical Supervisors (NTS)/Mates working with the respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA). It is the case of the petitioner that while all other cadres of the respondent DDA are being paid scales at par with those in CPWD, the NTS/Mates are being paid scales lower than that of their counterparts in CPWD, even though the duties of NTS/Mates in the respondent DDA are more varied than that in CPWD. Reliance in this regard is placed on the minutes of the meeting dated 5th April, 1990 of the senior officers of the respondent DDA (the counsel for the respondent DDA clarifies that the suggestions in the said minutes were not accepted by the Competent Authority of the respondent DDA).2. The petitioner earlier filed W.P.(C) No.564/1991 in this Court for a direction to the respo...
R.K.Chauhan Vs. Uoi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2011
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. On 22.11.1995 a memorandum was issued to the petitioner proposing to hold an inquiry under Rule 153 of the RPF Rules 1987 on the charge that while functioning as an Inspector RPF Loco-shed, Central Railway, Jhansi he failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and committed misconduct by demanding and accepting bribe in sum of `200/- from Babu Ram Verma as the balance payment of `4,500/-, which amount was recovered from his possession at 9:00 AM on 29.5.1993 at 509-B, Rani Laxmi Nagar, Jhansi.2. The stand taken by the petitioner was that he had no occasion to receive any bribe from Babu Ram Verma against whom he had already issued a charge sheet and the alleged consideration for the bribe, as stated by Babu Ram Verma, was the consideration by the petitioner not to charge sheet him. It was the further ...
Sh. Sukhey (Deceased) Through Lrs. Vs. Sh.Gauri Shanker and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2011
1. Whether the 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. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2010 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 19.8.2009 whereby the suit of the plaintiff i.e. Sukhey (deceased) filed through his legal heirs seeking possession of the suit property i.e. property bearing Municipal No.D-100, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi forming part of Village Shakarpur Khas, Delhi comprising part of Khasra No.83 had been dismissed.2. Plaintiff claimed himself to the owner of the aforenoted suit property. He had earlier filed a suit for ejectment of the aforenoted suit shop and recovery of rent against defendant no.1 which was suit No.196/98. Plaintiff has claimed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Defendant had denied the said relationship; that suit had been dismissed on 11.8.1999. Thereafter this s...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »