Delhi Court March 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Yogesh Duggal and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
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 the Digest? Yes1. This appeal arises out of an order dated 28.05.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge dismissing the probate petition filed by the appellants on the ground that the appellants had miserably failed to prove the due execution, attestation and registration of the Will in question . Also, they had not explained why the Will was registered after seven years of its alleged execution and further failed to explain the delay of more than nine years in filing the probate petition after the death of the testatrix . The appellants thus being aggrieved by the order has impugned it before us by way of the present appeal.2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are; the appellants filed a petition under Section 276 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 in November, 1994 for grant of probate of a Will dated 12.08...
Essel Sports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Board of Control for Cricket
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
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 the Digest? Yes1. This Judgment will dispose of connected Appeals No. FAO(OS) 107/2010 and FAO(OS) 154/2010 emanating from the common Order of the learned Single Judge dated 4.2.2010, by means of which an interim injunction on the Plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC for short) restrained the Defendant, Essel Sports Pvt. Ltd. (ESPL) from proceeding against the Plaintiff, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), in Courts in England. The Plaintiff submits that there is complete identity between the cause of action of the notified lis proposed and thereafter actually filed on 4.2.2010 in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, London and the dispute which is subject matter of Suit, CS(OS) No.1566/2007, filed by ESPL against the BCCI presently pending in thi...
Sh. Pritipal Singh Vs.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
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 in the Digest? NO1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 23rd October, 2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA 2798/2001 titled as Sh. Pritipal Singh v. UOI & Ors. whereby his petition of the petitioner for re-engagement was dismissed by the Tribunal.2. The petitioner lastly worked in 1985 and thereafter made a representation in 1987 for his re-engagement. The petitioner could not be re-engaged as there was no policy for re-engagement in 1987. However, another circular dated 19th April, 1990 was issued contemplating re-engagement of the some of the workers, who had previously worked in the Railways.3. While relying on the circular of 1990 for his re-engagement though the petitioner also referred to a Circular of 11th March, 1999, however, no such circular had been produced by the pet...
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Rohit Kumar Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
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? 1. This appeal seeks to impugn the judgment and award dated 18.09.2004 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding a sum of ` 33,45,000/- (including the interim compensation of ` 25,000/-) to the respondent No.1/claimant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the institution of the claim petition till the date of realisation.2. The facts relevant for deciding the appeal as they emerge from the record are that on 27.12.2000, the respondent No.1/claimant along with his friend was travelling in a Maruti Esteem Car bearing No.DL- 8C-A-2431, which was being driven by the respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner, without caring for the traffic rules. Resultantly, the respondent No.2 (the driver of the car) could not stop his car at the ESI crossing, between Sector-21A, 22, 24 and 2...
Prasanna Kumar.V Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
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. Regulation 35 of the Border Roads Organization reads as under:-"Probation35. The initial appointment of Officers Supervisory and other personnel will be temporary. The Officers, Supervisory and other personnel will be on probation for the first two years of appointment and on completion of probation, the competent authority will assess their suitability for continued appointment and pass appropriate orders either confirming the successful completion of probation or extending the probationary period for not more than one year at a time, provided that the aggregate period of probation does not, save for exceptional reasons, exceed 4 years. If on the expiry of or at any time during the period of probation, the appointing authority does not consider any member, suitable for continuance, he shall be discharged from GREF ...
M/S. Indian Associates Vs. the State and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. Whether reporters of Local papers be Yes allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in the Digest?1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9th October, 2009 of the learned Single Judge whereby Test Case No.43/1987 and IAs No.5054/1999, 6581-6582/2005 and 3097/2009 pending therein were dismissed.2. During the pendency of the Test Case No.43/1987, there has been various round of litigation between the parties on different issues relating to the estate of late Rani Padmawati Devi (hereinafter referred to as "the estate"). It would be useful to recite relevant facts as referred to by learned counsel for the parties during the course of arguments in the present appeal.3. Late Rani Padmawati Devi died intestate on 12.04.1987 leaving behind her husband, Raja Birendra Bahadur Singh; two sons, namely, Shivendra Bahadur Singh (SBS) and Ravindra Bahadur Singh (RBS) and two daughters, namely, Usha Devi and Sharda D...
Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Vs. R.C. Dubey
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
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 in the Digest? NO1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28th May, 2010 in TA 1471/2009 titled as R.C. Dubey v. UOI & Anr., whereby the discharge simplicitor of the respondent was held to be punitive and the order dated 5th July, 1995 discharging the respondent was quashed and set aside and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent as Principal of Navodaya Vidyalaya in the same rank and grade which he was holding when his services were terminated and he was discharged.2. The Tribunal in para 24 of the impugned order had given the following directions:-"24. In the result, the TA is allowed in the following terms:(i) The impugned order dated 5.7.1995 are quashed and set aside and we direct the Respondents to reinstate the Applicant as principal of one of the Navodaya vidyalayas in the same rank and grade h...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. M/S. G.S. Luthra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
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 the Digest? Yes1. This Appeal has been filed under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. It assails the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Objections filed by the Appellant in respect of the Award passed by the Sole Arbitrator, Shri R.J. Bhakru, Chief Engineer, CPWD (Retired). Concurrent findings, thus, are against the Appellant.2. In the formative years of arbitration, when it was still to be accepted as an alternative to Courts of law, it was understandable that the latter would prevail over the former. Arbitration, as dispute resolution mechanism, has now developed into a robust institution, capable of effectively and expeditiously deciding disputes, especially owing to that some of the Arbitrators possessed specialized knowledge. Expectedly, the superintendence of the Courts has diminished over the...
Golden Tobacco Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not Yes.3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes. in the Digest ?1. Golden Tobacco Company, formerly known as GTC Industries Limited, have filed the present appeals CEAC Nos. 5/2010 and 14/2010 under Section 35G of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (Act, for short). CEAC No. 5/2010 is directed against the order dated 15th February, 2010 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short), disposing of their application for waiver of pre-deposit, with the direction to deposit two amounts of Rs.8,71,70,993/- and Rs.3,07,55,877/-. The impugned order grants waiver of deposit of the cumulative penalty of Rs. 20 Crores. CEAC NO. 14/2010 is directed against the order dated 19th July, 2010 passed by the Tribunal dismissing the original appeals filed by the appellant for failure to deposit the tax amount in terms of the earlier order dated 15th...
R.K. Arora Vs. M/S Air Liquide India Holding Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not Yes.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest Yes. CM No. 5203/2011 (for exemption)Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.LPA No. 233/2011 & CM No. 5202/2011 (delay)1. The appellant R.K. Arora has assailed the order dated 10th January, 2011, dismissing his writ petition impugning the award dated 11th August, 2006, passed by the Labour Court VI. As there is a delay of 28 days in filing of the present intra-court appeal, CM No. 5202/2011 has been filed for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Labour Court had proceeded with great haste and hurry in closing the evidence as the appellant had gone out of India in the course of his employment. It is submitted that this has resulted in miscarriage of justice.2. As per the case made out by the appellant, his services were terminated...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »