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.
Rajender Kumar and Another Vs. the High Court of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
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 in Digest Yes 1. This writ petition has been filed by two candidates, who had appeared in the Delhi Judicial Service Examination 2010 under the Scheduled Castes category, but were unsuccessful because they did not obtain the minimum prescribed marks of 45% in the viva-voce test, although they had cleared the preliminary examination as well as they had qualified for being called for the interview. The petitioners are, inter alia, seeking a mandamus directing the respondent No.1 (Delhi High Court) to consider the petitioners as qualified and selected and to subsequently appoint them to the posts of Civil Judge or Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be. The petitioners also seek a direction that the entire recruitment procedure adopted during the Delhi Judicial Service Examination 2010 be declared as null and void and that a...
Smt. Murti Devi Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
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 appellant has challenged the order dated 6th November, 2009, passed in WP(C) No. 11191/2009 titled as 'Smt. Murti Devi v. UOI & Ors.', dismissing the writ petition, seeking directions to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to allot alternative suitable site under rehabilitation scheme to the appellant after demolition of the leased premises adjacent to shop No. 6, West Barron Road, New Delhi and for quashing the demand notice dated 17th April, 2009 and to declare the notice null and void.2. The relevant facts for comprehending the controversies are that pursuant to the application dated 7th May, 1957 by the husband of the appellant, a site measuring 2210 sq.ft., for running a flour mill driven by electricity at West Barron Road, adjacent to shop No. 6 from 14th August, 1957 at a monthly lease of Rs. 53/- per month ...
Amitava Acharjee Vs. Punjab National Bank and Another
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral): 1. The short facts of the case are that the complainant along with his deceased his wife Mondira Acharjee had obtained a housing loan from respondent-1 Punjab National Bank, and the amount of loan is insured by OP-2 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.vide a policy, copy of which is available on the record. On 29.12.2008, the wife of the complainant expired in a road accident, and the respondent-1 bank invoked the policy to respondent-2 Oriental Insurance Co., in turn whereof, the OP-2 took 14 months to make a payment of Rs. 8,28,412, which were paid on 12.2.2010 being 50% of amount outstanding on 29.12.2008, the date of cause of action. The complainants grouse is that the respondent-2 Insurance Company had insured the liability of outstanding bank loan amount, and the delay of 14 months in making the payment, amounts to deficiency of service. The complainant had suffered interest on the said sum for all these 14 months, and suffering pendente lite interest o...
S.S.Sidhoo Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
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 two writ petitions are taken together for the reason they have been filed by the same petitioner i.e. S.S.Sidhoo and the adjudication of one has an impact on the adjudication of the other. In WP(C) No. 19781/04 the petitioner has prayed to set aside the penalty order dated 22.7.2003 and in WP(C) No. 8970/06 he has prayed for fixing his seniority by placing him in the select panel as of 26.04.2004.2. The petitioner, S.S.Sidhoo joined CRPF as an Assistant Commandant on 14.08.1988 and earned a promotion to the post of Deputy Commandant in the year 1992. He was posted to Group Centre (GC) CRPF, Durgapur as a Deputy Commandant (Stores) in September 1994 and was entrusted with housekeeping duties such as preparation of budget, procurement and supply of stores, clothings etc. for the Battalions affiliated to the Group...
Logitronics Pvt. Ltd and anr. Vs. Jubilant Securities Pvt. Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers 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?1. Having regard to the commonality in the legal question which arises for consideration in these two appeals, they were heard on the same, one after the other. At the same time, after stating the legal principle which is involved, we will take up the appeals separately applying principles to the situation appearing in each of the case. ITA No.1623 of 20102. The issue in this case relates to the treatment which is to be given to the extent of amount of loan and interest waived by the financing institutions from where the loan was taken. The appellant is the assessee company, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing of electronic products. It was enjoying loan facility from State Bank of India (SBI). As the appellant could not discharge its liability for specific time, keeping in view the guidelines/directi...
Ashok Kalra Vs. Akash Paper Board Pvt Ltd and anr .
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
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. These appeal arises out of an order passed by the Addl. District judge in having dismissed the objections filed by the appellant to the award given by the sole arbitrator dated 20.10.2008. The objections have been filed beyond a period of 120 days inasmuch it has been filed on 02.06.2009.2. The only ground which is urged before this Court is that the address in the award as given was B-51, Jangpura, New Delhi whereas that address was not correct and, therefore, the award was not served upon the appellant.3. I have perused the objections filed by the appellant. No such plea that the award was not served upon the appellant at the correct address has been taken therein though a condonation of delay application has been filed.4. The record shows that the address at which the award has been sent is the same a...
Shri Nand Kishore Garg and anr. Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes 1. In this public interest litigation the petitioner describing himself as pro bono publico has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No.2, Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short the Commission), to issue the tariff approved by it on 28/29.4.2010 and pass such other order / orders as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. At the very outset, we may state with profit that various assertions and asseverations have been made with regard to the issues relating to finalization of the tariff by the Commission under the provisions of The Electricity Act, 2003 (for brevity the 2003 Act), the illegality committed by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi in asking the Commission not to issue the tariff and further how the consumers have ...
J.S.Furnishings Ltd. and anr. Vs. Mcd and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
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 the Digest?1. The writ petitions were filed seeking quashing of the orders of the assessment of property tax qua the respective properties of the petitioners including by impugning the Bye Laws, more specifically Bye Laws 2 (1) (b) (i) & 3 (1) (c) (iii) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Determination of Rateable Value) Bye Laws. 1994. Rule D.B. was issued on 24th April, 1997 and 8th September, 1999 respectively. On the applications of the petitioners for interim relief, the petitioners were directed to pay the entire amount of tax in terms of the assessment orders impugned in these petitions, with a further direction that in the event of the petitioners succeeding, the excess amount if any of the tax so paid by the petitioners, shall be refunded to the petitioners; in the order dated 8 th September, 1999 in W.P.(C) ...
Narender Kumar Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
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. An off the cuff observation made by a Division Bench of this Court has resulted in a second round of litigation. The observation we have referred to was made when WP(C)No.6723/2001 was dismissed vide order dated 15.07.2003. In the said writ petition the petitioner questioned his being discharged as a recruit on account of not successfully clearing the training. Upholding the petitioner being discharged, it was observed that the Court was told that the respondents were offering alternative trades for employment to failed candidates and thus it was directed that, subject to availability of a vacancy, petitioner would be entitled to be employed for an alternative trade. It may be noted that the petitioner was recruited as a constable (General duty) and was discharged inasmuch as he could not successfully clear the tra...
M/S Bhanu Construction Co. Pvt.Ltd. Vs. National thermal Power Corp. L ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No.3. Whether the judgment should be reported No. in the Digest?1. The suit was registered upon arbitration award dated 22 nd July, 1993 being filed by the arbitrators in this Court. Notice of filing of the award was issued. Objections (I.A. No.4972/1994) under Section 30&33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 of the defendant to the award are for consideration. No objections to the award have been preferred by the plaintiff. Usual issues were framed on 8 th March, 1995. Synopses of submissions were filed by the parties. I.A. No.12307/1999 has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 17 of the 1940 Act contending that Arbitral Tribunal had sent intimation to the parties also of the filing of the award in this Court; that the objections to the award ought to have been filed by the defendant within 30 days from such intimation and not within 30 days of the service of the notice...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »