Delhi Court March 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.
Kashi Nath Roy Vs. State of Bihar Thr. Joint Secretary and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?1. Vide judgment dated 06.05.2010 we have dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, which was originally filed before the High Court of Judicature at Patna under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India but which was transferred to this Court under the orders of Honble Supreme Court dated 08.04.2002.2. The said writ petition was filed by the petitioner against the decision dated 28-29.06.1996 of the Standing Committee of the Patna High Court recommending removal of the petitioner from the services of the Bihar State Superior Judicial service with immediate effect, as also against notification No.11851 dated 02.11.1996 issued by the State of Bihar after accepting the recommendations of the Standing Committee issued under Rule 3(vii) of the Patna High Court Rules 1916 in accordance with the provisions cont...
Dayawati Khanna Vs. Suman Mehra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may No. be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.3. Whether the judgment should be reported No. in Digest?1. This is an application filed by defendant no. 6 for permission (i) to let out the second and third floor of the suit property which is a duplex unit, (ii) to restrain the plaintiff and defendant no. 4 and anyone else claiming through them from interfering in his use and enjoyment of the aforesaid portions of the property and to have access to all the portions of the property and (iii) to restrain them and anyone claiming through them, from interfering in use of the basement of the aforesaid property by him.2. The plaintiff, who is stated to be aged about 80 years, is the wife of defendant no. 6, who is stated to be about 86 years old, whereas defendant nos. 1 to 5 are their daughters. Property no. 21A, Aurangzeb Lane, New Delhi was owned by an HUF consisting of defendant No.6 Shri T.N. Khanna and his three b...
Ms. Madhu Kukreti Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
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? Yes 1. In this petition, the petitioner impugns the decision of the second respondent to amend the selection criteria on the ground that the changes in question were brought about after the selection process had been completed. She states that under the circumstances, the changes brought in have placed her at a disadvantage. The petitioner, however, has not challenged the entire selection process but only the appointment of the third respondent, Raghubir Singh Kainturia. It is alleged that the selection process was amended with a view to manipulate the results and extend favour to the third respondent. 2. The second respondent is stated to have issued an advertisement on 29th July, 2006, in the Employment News inviting applications for the post of Executive Assistant for its corporate Office at New Delhi and t...
Tata Finance Ltd. Vs. P.S.Mangla and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may Yes be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in Digest?1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 32,53,824/- instituted by the Tata Finance Ltd. through its attorney Mr. Anil Sharma. The plaintiff company had taken flat No. 401, New Delhi, House 27, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110 001 admeasuring 1076 sq. ft. and comprising of one hall and a toilet on rent, from defendants 1 to 3 for a period of three years vide registered lease deed executed on 18.04.1995. Vide another agreement of the same day, defendant No.4 leased the furnishings and fittings provided in the aforesaid premises to the plaintiff company, for the same period. A sum of Rs.25,82,400/- was deposited by the plaintiff company as security vide yet another agreement executed between the plaintiff company and all the four defendants on the same date.2. Clause 17 of the lease agreement gave an option to the pla...
Sh. Nand Ram Bagri Vs. Sh. Jai Kishan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes. 1. The question which has fallen for adjudication is, whether in the trial of an election petition, the witnesses are necessarily required to be examined and cross examined before the Judge of the High Court and whether recording of evidence before the Joint Registrar is impermissible. Though the said question has been raised by the respondent No.1 belatedly, after all the witnesses of the petitioner have already been examined and cross examined before the Joint Registrar and only at the stage of examination of the witnesses of the respondents but the question being a pure question of law and there being no estoppel against the law, the counsels have been heard.2. The contentions of the counsel for the respondent No.1 are:- (i) that the trial of an election petition is different from the trial of a suit...
Hira Lal Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
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 appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.08.1997 and order on sentence dated 21.08.1997 delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 6/96, FIR No. 40/95, P.S. Anand Vihar, whereby the appellant Hira Lal was convicted under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.500/- was also imposed upon him, and in default thereof, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.2. The case of the prosecution was that on 12.2.1995 information was received by PW- 21 Irush Tiagga who was posted at Police Station Anand Vihar that a dead body was lying near railway line Road No.56, Anand Vihar, which was duly recorded as DD No.7A which is Ex.PW-21/A. On receipt of this information, SI Irush Tiagga reached the spot along with a constable...
Rajeev Kumar Mishra Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India thereby praying for the following reliefs: "a) Issue a writ or direction thereby quashing the integrated seniority list dated 29.01.2008 of Assistant Manager (General) and Assistant Manager (Depot).b) Issue an appropriate writ or direction thereby directing the respondents 1 & 2 to redraft the integrated seniority list showing the petitioner at Sl. No.219 in accordance with the Regulation 16(1) and 16(8).c) Issue an appropriate writ or direction thereby quashing the panel of promotion as drawn on in the DPC dated 09.06.2009 of respondent No.3 to 11 as Assistant General Manager (General) as they have been considered wrongly for the said post.d) Issue an appropriate writ or direction thereby directing the ...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-iv Vs. Jaypee Dsc Ventures Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
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? Yes1. The present appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity the Act) was admitted on the following substantial question of law:"Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.16,36,039/- on the ground that interest earned by the assessee on the fixed deposit receipt being capital in nature cannot be assessed as income from other sources solely on the foundation that the fixed deposit was made for submitting performance guarantee to the National Highways Authority of India?"2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2003-04 on 21st September, 2003 declaring nil income. An order of assessment was framed under ...
Helm Dungemittel Gmbh Vs. the State Trading Corportion of India Ltd. a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
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 YES 1. The question to be decided by the present order is as to whether the defendant no. 2 can be permitted to invoke the counter guarantee on the basis of which the defendant no. 2 had furnished the performance guarantee in favour of defendant no. 1/beneficiary. It may be pertinent here to mention that counter guarantee by defendant no. 3 was furnished at the instance of the plaintiff as a part of performance guarantee being furnished in terms of the contractual obligation between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1.2. In order to make the factual matrix clear, the plaintiff hereinafter is referred as German Party, the defendant no. 1 as STC, defendant no. 2 as Canara Bank and the defendant no. 3 as German Bank.3. The facts of the case are that the German Party entered into a contract with STC on 01.10.2008 ...
Dr. Seema S. Yadagiri Vs. Uoi and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
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 had appeared in the All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination-2011 conducted by the respondents and had secured a high rank of 1451 therein and in accordance with the option exercised by her, was called for counseling at Mumbai on 5th March, 2011. The petitioner claims to be a resident of District Gulbarga, Karnataka. She has filed documents before this Court to show that she along with her mother travelled to Mumbai to participate in the counseling and reached there in the morning of 5th March, 2011. It is the case of the petitioner duly supported by documents that on reaching Mumbai, she took ill and had to be hospitalized in Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Hospital and was discharged therefrom only the next day i.e. 6th March, 2011. 6th being a Sunday, the petitioner reported at the...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »