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.
Suraj Bhan Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
1. Petitioner by this petition has prayed that the impugned order i.e. Annexure A-1 may be quashed and the respondents may be directed to release disability pension to the petitioner. 2. Petitioner was enrolled in the Air Force as an Airman on 29th December 1983 and after successful completion of his training as Airframe Fitter, he was posted to Air Force Technical College, Bangalore and worked on fighter aircraft MIG-21 as Airframe Fitter. On 29th December 1988 he was promoted to the rank of Corporal and worked on MIG-29 fighter aircraft. Thereafter he was promoted to the rank of Sgt. in 1994. In routine check-up, petitioner was said to have affected by hypertension and in 1998 he was placed in low medical category and reviewed by the Medical Board from time to time. The Medical Board assessed 20% disability (Permanent) on 13th March 2003 as certified by the Commanding Officer. Then applicant was discharged on 31st December 2003 but the disability pension was not given to the petitio...
Madhav Baburao Mahajan Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2011
1. Petitioner by this petition has prayed that the order dated 6th September 1986 rejecting the claim for disability pension issued by the Cap./Record Officer for OIC Records, Kirkee Pune as well as the decision in appeal communicated by the letter dated 26th February 1987 refusing his claim for disability pension, issued by the Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi by quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. He has also prayed that the respondents may be directed to sanction disability pension to him. 2. Petitioner was inducted as a Tradesman, on 4th September 1979 in the Armed Forces. Initially he was appointed as Driver Plant Mechanical Transport and subsequently he was transferred to Silliguri. When he was posted at Silliguri a major mishap occurred by way of a landslide in which many persons of his regiment were killed on the spot. Due to this petitioner sustained a mental shock and lost mental bal...
Smt.Sudha Aggarwal and ors. Vs. Shri Sunil Kumar Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
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 01.11.2010 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 17.8.2010 whereby the suit for possession, permanent injunction and damages filed by the plaintiff Nirmal Kumar qua the suit property bearing No.1715, Pilli Kothi, Nahar Sada Khan, S.P.Mukherjee Marge, Delhi had been dismissed.2. The contention of the is plaintiff that he was the owner of the suit property and the defendant Sunil Kumar Jain is a trespasser. Admittedly, father of Sunil Kuma Jain, Inder Kumar was his tenant but after his death on 19.2.2005 and thereafter the death of his wife Memo Devi on 9.3.2008, the defendant had become a mere trespasser and was liable to be evicted.3. The defence of the defendant was that he was a tenant n his legal right and he had inherited the te...
Tarun Sawhney Vs. Uma Lal and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
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 specific performance of the two agreements to sell both dated 16th September, 2009, perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction. The plaintiff has also made an alternative prayer for damages in case specific performance of the agreement to sell is not granted.2. Property bearing BP No. 32, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi, admeasuring 1021 sq. metres was owned by Ms. Usha Bhagat. Vide agreement to sell dated 14th August, 1969, she agreed to sell her half undivided share in the property to her brother defendant No. 5 Mr. Venoo Bhagat. In a suit filed by Ms. Veenu, a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 14 th August, 1969 was passed against Ms. Usha Bhagat, which led to execution of a sale deed/transfer deed dated 11 th September, 2008 in his favour, in respect of half ...
Anil Kumar Srivastava Vs. Shri Satbir Singh Manku
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
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 9.3.2005 which has endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 8.11.2004 wherein the fate of the two suits i.e. Suit No.573/2002 and Suit No.423/2002 had been sealed. Suit No.573/2002 was instituted first in time. This was a suit filed by Anil Kumar Srivastva (hereinafter referred to 'as the appellant') seeking declaration to the effect that the document Ex.PW-1/C which was a rent deed dated 29.11.2001 purported to have been executed between the appellant and Satbir Singh Manku (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') be declared null and void. The contention was that the compromise recorded between the appellant and the respondent in an earlier suit i.e. suit No.422/2001 on 03.12.2001 was a fraudulent transaction as the counsel purported to h...
Raminder Kaur and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
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 for bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail who are sister and sister's husband of accused no.1 namely Gurpreet Singh with whom complainant married.2. A perusal of complaint would show that accused persons namely Gurpreet Singh, Baldev Singh, Smt. Jasbir Kaur and Karambir Singh, Amrit Kaur all have been shown to be resident of Chandigarh and California. It is stated that presently these five accused persons were living at California and the present petitioners namely Raminder Kaur Uppal and Ajit Singh Uppal have been shown resident of Sector-15A, Chandigarh.3. The marriage of complainant was settled through matrimonial site namely jeevan sathi.com. In the profile, the boy himself had given his particulars that he was never married and stated hi...
S. Ahluwalia Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
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. Having successfully completed his training at the National Defence Academy and the Indian Military Academy, the petitioner was commissioned in the Corps of Signals on 11.06.1994.2. Petitioner earned time bound promotions and reached the rank of Lt.Colonel.3. The undisputed position is that on account of petitioner having an old and an ailing mother who suffers various medical problems and a wife also having medical problems, the Army authorities were always sympathetic to the petitioner and accommodated him at Delhi for long durations.4. Petitioner sought premature retirement which was rejected vide order dated 15.12.2006.5. As per the petitioner, he had sought premature retirement inasmuch as he wanted to spend quality time with his mother who appears to be fairly unwell and his wife. The request was declined on ac...
Satish Kumar Malhotra and anr. Vs. Rajinder Bajaj
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
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. Satish Kumar Malhotra is the appellant before this court. He has impugned the judgment dated 28.2.2004. Vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.2.2004 the order of the trial judge dated 15.12.1999 had been endorsed. The trial judge had disposed of the petition under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act) and simultaneously allowed the application under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the the Code) in terms of which the parties had entered into a valid cancellation agreement dated 11.7.1997 cancelling their agreement dated 30.11.1983. In terms of this compromise dated 11.7.1996 Satish Kumar Malhotra (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) had handed over the suit property i.e. property bearing No.G...
Ram Chander Educational Society and anr Vs. Delhi Development Authorit ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
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 order should be reported in judgment? Yes 1. The Petitioner No.1 is the Ram Chander Educational Society and the Petitioner No.2 is its President. The prayer in the petition is to quash the show cause notice dated 6th May 2004 as well as a letter dated 6th July 2004 issued by the Directorate of Education, Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) Respondent No.2, withdrawing the sponsorship for the allotment of land in favour of the Petitioner No.1. The other prayers are for a declaration that sponsorship letter dated 12 th November 2002 is subsisting and for a direction to the Respondents to change the sponsorship of allotment of land in favour of the Petitioner No.1 for establishing a Senior Secondary School in Janakpuri/Vikaspuri, District West-B from Zone 18 to Zone 17 and to allot the land to the Petitioner on the basis of the ap...
/S Titanor Components Ltd. Vs. Cit and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment Yes2. To be referred to Reporters or not Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in the Digest ?1. This is an appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as IT Act) by the assessee against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 24.04.1999 passed in ITA No. 2079/D/98 pertaining to assessment year 1994-95. 1.1 The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment inasmuch as it has resulted in denial of deduction claimed by the assessee under the provisions of Section 80IA of the I.T. Act. The captioned appeal against the impugned judgment was admitted on 18.08.2000. By this order, the following questions of law were framed :- "(i). Whether coating with oxides of Noble Metals on Titanium Metal Electrode / Anode bringing about a change in its character and user for making it fit for use in the production...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »