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.
Ashok Kumar and anr. Vs. Mcd and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
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 petitioners have challenged the order dated 20th August, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi in an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 titled Sh. Ashok Kumar and Anr. vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. dismissing their application seeking change of their seniority viz-a-viz other respondents.2. Brief facts to comprehend the dispute between the parties are that for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) a test was conducted by Delhi Subordinate Staff Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as "DSSSB"). The petitioners and others were selected for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). Subsequent to the selection DSSSB had sponsored the petitioners to the MCD for appointment to the post of Assistant Engine...
Arun Sharma Vs. Chandra Bose and ors.
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? J U D G M E N T 1. By way of this petition the petitioners, who are the legal representatives of the deceased Sabita Devi, who died in a motor vehicular accident, seeks to impugn the following order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal: -"05.10.10 Claim petition filed by the cl for petitioners. Since the case file belongs to DAR, the same is dismissed. File be consigned to record room."2. The sole contention of Mr. Ashok Popli and Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocates, the learned counsel for the petitioners in the present petition is that the Tribunal has wrongly and illegally dismissed the claim petition filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Smt. Sabita Devi under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the ground that since the D.A.R. (Detailed Accident Report) had been filed, the claim petition was liable to b...
In the Matter Of: Col. Sandeep Singh Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
1. The applicant has filed present O.A. challenging return/refusal order dated 07.01.2008 (Annexure P-A) of his application for premature retirement and has prayed that his premature retirement application be allowed and the respondents be directed to release him from service. Notice of this application was issued to the respondent side and they filed their counter affidavit. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was commissioned in the organisation on 11.06.1988. He was selected for a United Nations Mission from 25.03.2005 to 25.03.2006. On return from United Nations Mission, he continued his services with the armed forces. The applicant further contends that he is the only son of his aged parents. He has a duty to attend to his ailing mother, who is a Cancer patient who after recovery from the Breast Cancer had again been diagnosed with Colon Cancer in September, 2005. The applicant contends that he is living separately from his wife since 2004 as she is training abroad....
Maa Buddha National Mahavidyalaya Vs. National Council for Teacher Edu ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
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 15 th September, 2010 of the Appeal Committee of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 8 th May, 2010 of the Northern Regional Committee (NRC) closing the file of the application of the petitioner for recognition for D.El.Ed. course. The matter had come before this Court on 22 nd December, 2010 when the counsel for the petitioner had contended that the controversy in the present matter is covered by the judgment dated 1st November, 2010 of this Bench in W.P.(C) No.6227/2010 titled ESS ESS College of Education v. NCTE. The counsel for the NCTE had then sought time to take instructions. Opportunity was also given to file counter affidavit. No counter affidavit has been filed. The counsel for the re...
Dr. Ramesh Nirmal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. Whether reporters of the local news papers be allowed to see the order? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the order should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER1. The facts of the case have been set out in an order dated 22nd July 2010 passed by this Court which reads as under:"1. This writ petition seeks a direction to the Rastriya Sanskrit Sansthan (Respondent No. 2) to honour a sanction order dated 4/5th July 2005 whereby financial assistance was granted to the Petitioner for publication of 2000 copies of his book Kaalijayee Ujjayinee which is a cultural history of the city of Ujjain. The grant amount was Rs. 39,92,000/-.2. The Petitioner has averred, on affidavit, that the process emanated with a letter dated 14th August 2004 written by one Dr. Mahaveer Adhikari, a senior journalist and a litterateur to the Union Minister for Human Resources Development (HRD) recommending the grant of financial assistance in respect of 5,000 copies of the Petitioners book. ...
M/S Unique Innovation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mcd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. This order is in continuation of yesterday's order i.e. of 2nd February, 2011. In reply to the queries posed yesterday, the counsel for the respondent MCD states that neither any second inspection was carried out nor any order of sealing passed or served on the petitioner. He however states that the action of sealing against the petitioner was in pursuance to the inspection of 14th December, 2010 by the Members of the Monitoring Committee appointed by the Supreme Court. He has in Court handed over a copy of the file noting recording that the basement of the motel of the petitioner was found being used in contravention of MPD-2021/Building Bye-Laws, 1983 and in view thereof notice under Section 345-A of the DMC Act was approved to be issued to the petitioner. It is however admitted that in the evening of 27th December, 2010 an unattested affidavit, as appearing at pages 36 & 37 of the paper book was submitted by the petitioner to the MCD.2. It is further informed that since in the sa...
Shail Kumari Saxena Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes1. By this common order, I shall dispose of the appeals arising out of an order passed by the Additional District Judge dated 28.03.2009, whereby the learned Additional District Judge granted letters of administration to Respondent No.2 with respect to Will dated 10.08.1990 and Codicil dated 27.09.1992 alleged to have been executed by late Sh. Krishan Murari Swarup.2. Briefly stating, the facts leading to filing of the present appeal are that late Sh.Krishna Murari Swarup, owner of the suit property bearing No. B-1/280, Janak Puri, New Delhi executed a Will dated 10.08.1990 and thereafter, Codicil dated 27.09.1992 naming his eldest son as the executor of the Will. By the aforesaid Will and Codicil his property situated at B-1/280, Janak Puri, New Delhi was bequeathed to Respondent No.2. After the death of t...
Jitendra Singh Vs. Govt of Nct of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
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 passed his class Xth examination in the year 1995; on the basis of the said qualification, the petitioner in the year 1997 secured admission in the three year diploma course in Architectural Assistantship in the respondent no.3 Chhotu Ram Rural Institute of Technology affiliated to respondent no.2 Board of Technical Education, Delhi. Though in the petition a number of details with respect to the passing/clearing of various semesters/papers of the course by the petitioner are stated but the controversy now is in a narrow compass. The petitioner on completion of course, as per the counter affidavit of the respondents also, has secured aggregate 1157 out of 2320 marks i.e. 49.870%. The Rules of the Board of Technical Education provide that any score less than 50% will not entitle the student to ...
Rajender Singh Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
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. Vide order dated 9.4.2009 penalty of removal from service has been levied upon the petitioner and the period from 26.2.2007 till date of the order during which petitioner remained suspended has been directed to be treated as for suspension only and this we understand means that for the period he remained under suspension, the petitioner would not be paid wages, but the period would be counted on duty for purposes of such benefits as would accrue to the petitioner keeping in view the penalty levied.2. It is hoped and expected that in future, the Disciplinary Authority would be more clear in what it intends to convey under the order passed.3. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 9.4.2009 has been rejected vide order dated 21.7.2009 and in the revision filed against the said order, the only relief ex...
Union of India Vs. Shiv Ram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-2011
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 award dated 7th October, 2004 of the Labour Court directing the petitioner to regularize the employment of the two respondents/workmen, employed with the petitioner on temporary basis, with effect from the date of their initial employment in the year 1986. The petition came up before this Court first on 20 th February, 2006 when the writ petition was dismissed so far as the direction to regularize the workmen w.e.f. 1986 and payment of their full arrears w.e.f. 4 th March, 1996 was concerned. Notice was issued limited to the point of payment of arrears from 1986 till 4 th March, 1996 when the workmen had cleared/qualified the departmental test held for regularization of muster roll/temporary employees.2. It is not in dispute that the respondent no.1 was regularized w.e.f. 21st May, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »