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.
Union of India and Another Vs. Gopal Seth and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
1. Whether 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 Yes in the Digest ?1. Gopal Seth and Anand Kumar Seth, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, are legal representatives of Girdhari Lal. By the impugned judgment dated 27th October, 2004, the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1658/1999 filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has been allowed and the appellant herein, Land and Development Officer has been directed to allot or direct DDA to allot a plot of land of the size as per the entitlement of Girdhari Lal as determined in their files. It has been also directed by the impugned judgment that the appellant shall raise a demand and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall pay the differential in the current pre-determined rates and the pre-determined rates as on 1st January, 1970.2. The challenge to the impugned judgment by the appellant is principally on two grounds. Firstly, the respondent No.1 a...
Bharat Tewari Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
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. This appeal arises out of an order dated 27.08.2007 passed by the learned ADJ whereby the Learned Additional District judge after hearing the parties and finding no merit in the Objection Petition filed by the appellant dismissed the objection petition and upheld the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 02.08.2006. The appellant, thus being aggrieved by the order of the Learned Additional District judge has impugned it before us. Hence the present appeal.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, Appellant was allotted a parking lot at (PRS) Sarojini Nagar Railway Station, New Delhi for a period of two years w.e.f. 1.5.2003 on a payment of a lump sum amount of `14,80,005/-. An agreement to that effect was executed between the parties on 6.5.2003. The parking lot allotted to the appellant consisted of g...
Dales Sr. Sec. School and anr. Vs. Rajinder Singh Malik and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
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 in the digest? (No) 1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was filed against the judgment dated 21st September, 2000 of the Delhi School Tribunal (to be referred to hereinafter as the the tribunal) constituted under the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 whereby the petitioners herein were directed to take back in service respondent no.1 herein who was employed by them as a Laboratory Assistant in Daisy Dales Senior Secondary School, East of Kailash (petitioner no.2 herein and which shall be referred to hereinafter as the School) w.e.f. 01/07/96.2. The relevant facts may first be briefly be noticed before proceeding further to consider the grounds of challenge taken by the petitioner in this petition against the impugned judgment of the tribunal. On 1st July, 1996 the respondent no.1 wa...
ivrcl Infrastructures and Projects Ltd. Vs. National Highways Authorit ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
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 Yes reported in the Digest?1. The National Highways Authority of India (for short NHAI)/respondent herein, invited bids/tenders for the work of operation and maintenance of Madurai-Tirunelveli- Panagudi Section (Km 0.00 to Km 211.140) of NH-7 in the State of Tamil Nadu on Operate, Maintenance and Transfer (OMT) Basis at an estimated cost of `112.00 crore. The bidding process was divided into two stages. The first stage was the qualification stage and the second was the bid stage. In the qualification stage interested parties were required to obtain the Request for Qualification (for short RFQ) and submit their applications along with information sought for in the RFQ. Such of the applicants who fulfilled the criteria specified in the RFQ were to be shortlisted as eligible for Request for Proposal (for short RFP). Petitioner, thus, su...
M/S. Madhucon Projects Ltd. Vs. National Highways Authority of India a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
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 Yes reported in the Digest?1. The National Highways Authority of India (for short NHAI)/respondent No.1, floated a tender for the development and operation/maintenance of the four-laning of Ranchi-Rargaon- Jamshedpur section from KM 114.00 to 277.500 of NH-33 in the State of Jharkhand on Design, Build, Finance, Operate and Transfer (DBFOT) Annuity Basis under NHDP Phase-III Project. The estimated project cost was `1,479.00 crore. The tender process was divided into two stages. The first stage was the qualification/Request for Qualification (RFQ), which involved the pre-qualification of interested parties/bidders so as to shortlist the bidders who would participate in the second stage. The second stage was the bid stage/Request for Proposal (RFP) when the shortlisted bidders were to submit their bids/financial offers in accordance wit...
M.P.Verma and anr. Vs. Director Indian Institute of Technology
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
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. A short issue arises for consideration in the two captioned appeals: Whether removal of the anomaly resulting from erstwhile Mechanics Grade B who were merged with Mechanics Grade A and the two groups were classified as Senior Mechanic being promoted as Assistant Foreman ahead of those who were erstwhile Mechanic A resulting in the department removing the anomaly and giving the grade of Assistant Foreman to erstwhile Mechanics A is a promotion or grant of a mere replacement scale?2. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 22.4.2008 the learned Single Judge has returned a verdict against the appellants and has thus denied the claim for further promotion under the Recruitment and Career Progression Scheme 2006.3. It is not in dispute that the Scheme of 2006 envisaged two assured upward movements/promotion in a career ...
Sanjay Kumar Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be Yes allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Yes the Digest?1. This order shall dispose of an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Railways Act") against the judgment dated 23.11.2007, whereby the Railway Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") has dismissed the claim application filed by the appellant/injured under Section 16 of the Railways Act against the respondent Railway Administration for payment of compensation for the injuries alleged to have been sustained by him in an untoward incident.2. Briefly stating, it was the case of the appellant that he boarded the Train bearing No. SDP2 EMU from Hazrat Nizammuddin Railway Station for his journey to Faridabad Railway Station and in between Hazrat Nizammuddin and Okhla Railway Station, near Nehru Nagar, he fell down f...
Dinesh Kumar Atri Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
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 facts are not in dispute and the only issue which arises for consideration is: Whether the petitioner had a justification to abscond. Secondly, whether the penalty of compulsory retirement levied upon the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence.2. It may be noted that the petitioner had joined service under CRPF in January 1987 and had served without a blemish, till he did the offending act attracting levy of penalty of compulsory retirement upon him vide order dated 31.8.2009.3. A Joint Departmental Inquiry was ordered against the petitioner Ct.Dinesh Kumar as also SI Chander Deep Singh and HC Ram Lochan. It was alleged against them that while functioning as Members of CRPF, they deserted from the store collection party leaving behind their personal arms and ammunitions and gove...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Sh. Milap Chand Grover
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
1. Whether reporters of Local papers Yes may 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 petitioner, Delhi Transport Corporation has challenged the order dated 2nd June, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in TA 1370/2009 titled as "Milap Chand Grover, Conductor v. Delhi Transport Corporation" allowing the original application of the respondent and directing the petitioner to pay full back wages to the respondent for the period from 8th March, 1996 to 16th October, 2002 and consequently to pay 75% of the wages to the respondent and to also consider this period for seniority, promotion and other benefits of the respondent, which were disallowed by the petitioner by order dated 4th August, 2006.2. Brief facts to comprehend the controversy between the parties are that a complaint was made against the respondent and other employees by a Ticket Inspector for assa...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Modern Public School Education Society ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
1. Whether 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. Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has filed the present intra-Court appeal against the judgment dated 1st December, 2009 allowing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9321/2006 filed by Modern Public School Education, the respondent herein. The appellant has been directed to issue No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to permit them to proceed with sanction of building plans in respect of land measuring 3.97 acres at block-B, between pockets L&P;, Paschim Salimar Bagh, New Delhi (Land, for short). The respondent has been directed to deposit composition fee for non-construction of Rs.9,12,599/- together with interest @ 6% per annum from 2003 till the date of judgment. It has been further held that the directions were subject to the final order which may be passed in the proceedings ari...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »