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.
National Fertilizer Limited and anr. Vs. B.S. Rahi and ors.
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. The appellant, National Fertilizer Limited, by this intra-court appeal assails the judgment dated 17th October, 2008 allowing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13672/2006 which was filed by the respondent herein, Mr. B.S. Rahi. By the impugned judgment, it was, inter alia, held that the Board of Directors of the appellant had, vide order dated 7th July, 2006, erred in accepting the resignation letter dated 9th September, 2003 with effect from 25th November, 2003. The appellant has been directed to reinstate the respondent and pay back-wages with effect from 25th November, 2003 till the date of his retirement on 31st December, 2005.2. The respondent had joined Fertilizer Corporation of India on 5th June, 1972 and upon bifurcation became an employee of the appellant with effect from 1st April, 1978. He worked up, on v...
Ranjan Kr Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2011
1. The petitioner filed W.P (C) No. 1339 of 2002 before the Delhi High Court challenging the Summary Court Martial (SCM) proceedings held on 9.2.1999, whereby he was held guilty of having committed an offence under Army Act Section 40 (a) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced (i) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months in civil prison and (ii) to be dismissed from service. On formation of the Armed Forces Tribunal, the writ petition was transferred to this Bench and is being disposed of by this judgment, treating it as an appeal under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007. 2. The facts that gave rise to this appeal are: The appellant joined the Army as Craftsman and Trade Vehicle Mechanic on 4.1.1996. While he was posted at Gandhidham (Gujarat), one Dinesh Chandra Das sustained injuries allegedly at the hands of the appellant and two other Sepoys. He was admitted to hospital with severe head injuries. A charge sheet was issued to the appellant...
Krishan Pal Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-2011
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. In the year 2002 the Petitioner Krishna Pal Singh was deployed as Constable with CISF Unit IOC, Panipat. Admittedly, an incident took place on 16.12.2002 involving the petitioner and SI R.L.Pandit who was the shift in-charge of the CISF Unit IOC, Panipat. The petitioner and SI R.L.Pandit gave their rival versions as to what actually happened. Admittedly, the two had a spat; abusive language was exchanged. Whereas petitioner alleged that SI R.L.Pandit triggered off the spat and slapped him, SI R.L.Pandit alleged to the contrary by stating that it was petitioner who abused him and assaulted him. A Preliminary Inquiry was conducted and the petitioner was suspended with immediate effect from 17.12.2002. A charge memorandum was issued to the petitioner on 08.01.2003. Charges levied upon him read as under:-"Article of Cha...
Srishti School of Art, Design and Technology Vs. the Chairperson, Cent ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-2011
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 "The constitutional right of free expression is powerful medicine in a society as diverse and populous as ours. It is designed and intended to remove governmental restraints from the arena of public discussion, putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us, in the hope that use of such freedom will ultimately produce a more capable citizenry and more perfect polity and in the belief that no other approach would comport with the premise of individual dignity and choice upon which our political system rests." [Justice Harlan in Cohen v. California 403 U.S. 15 (1971)]"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it" [Attributed to Voltaire in S.G.Tallentyre, The Friends of Voltaire (1907)]1. The Petitioner, which has produced a documentary...
ShamshuddIn and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-2011
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. Petitioners No.1 and 2 are engaged as cooks with BSF. Petitioner No.3 is employed as a Safai Karamchari. All of them claim entitlement to receive Hospital Patient Care Allowance in terms of the policy decision dated 04.02.2004. It may be noted at the outset that after the writ petition was filed, petitioner No.3 has started receiving the said allowance and thus we need to decide the issue qua petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 who are working as cooks in BSF Hospitals.2. Petitioners rely upon the decision dated 19th March, 2008 in W.P.(C) No.1866/2008 SI S.R.Khan &Ors.; v. UOI & Ors. wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that Pharmacist, ANM, Radiographer and Kahar (Waterman) being combined paramilitary staff and posted in BSF Hospitals would be entitled to the said allowance.3. It be noted at the outset that...
Ex. Cpl Parashar Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-2011
1. Challenge is made to the findings and the order dated 30th October, 1989 of the DCM whereby the appellant was held guilty for the offences under Sections 40(a) and 40(c) of the Air Force Act (hereinafter referred as the Act) and was sentenced to (a) be reduced to the ranks (b) be dismissed from service (c) to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months and also the order dated 31st August 1990 passed by the Appellate Authority on a petition under Section 161 (2) of the Act. Simultaneously prayer has been made for grant of pension treating the petitioner to have completed the pensionable service of 15 years. It is contended that the entire case was fabricated against the appellant. Flt. Lt. K.L. Yadav was anyhow annoyed with the appellant and was bent upon harassing him on small issues and he used to grill the appellant at occasions without any fault. Even for an hours delay or so in attending the duties, he questioned the appellant to the extent of giving punishment. On the fabrica...
Ex Jwo Rd Sharma Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2011
1. Challenge in this O.A is against the order of the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief dated 17.12.2009, whereby the finding and sentence of the General Court Martial was upheld. Simultaneously, prayers were also made to direct the respondents to release his pay and allowances from the date of his arrest till the date of retirement; to treat him as retired with effect from 2.2.1992 after the expiry of the extended service on the basis of 26 years of service; and to make him entitled for all consequential benefits. 2. To invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, the appellant has resorted to the provisions contained in Rule 6(2) of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2008 (the Procedure Rules, in short) showing his ordinary place of residence as House No. 209, Chatterpur, New Delhi-110 074. However, all along the O.A has been resisted by the respondents on the ground that the appellant has concealed the true fact that he is a resident of Gurgaon, Haryana, which would fall within t...
Ex-naik Rajeshwar Singh Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2011
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. Proceeding on 15 days' leave commencing from 13.6.1991 up to 28.6.1991, petitioner overstayed leave by 45 days. The misdemeanour was overlooked. Proceeding on 60 days' leave sanctioned from 3.5.1993 till 5.7.1993, petitioner overstayed leave by 74 days. The misdemeanour was also overlooked.2. Availing 10 days' sanctioned leave commencing from 11.9.1995, requiring petitioner to re-join on 22.9.1995, petitioner did not join the Unit. Two reminders were sent to him to report back. The first was on 29.9.1995 and the second on 27.10.1995. Petitioner did not join back. On 2.11.1995 he submitted a resignation on a plain paper. It was sent by post. Responding to the petitioner on 21.11.1995, he was informed to join back and submit a proper resignation and complete the codal formalities to enable the department to process hi...
Canoro Resources Ltd Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2011
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? : Yes 1. This petition is preferred by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to seek the following reliefs: (a) An ad interim injunction restraining the respondent from directly or indirectly and in any manner whatsoever acting under its letter of termination dated August 27, 2010 of the Production Sharing Contract (PSC), and taking any other steps detrimental to the interests of the petitioner till the matter is finally disposed off by an arbitral tribunal.(b) An ad-interim order of injunction restraining the respondent from directly or indirectly and in any manner whatsoever considering the termination of the PSC as being effective on and from August 29, 2010.(c) An order of status quo ante pending the award of the Arbitral Tribunal.The petitioner had sought the rel...
Sand Plast (India) Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2011
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 writ petitioner, M/s.Sand Plast (India) Ltd. has challenged the order dated 24.1.2011 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal in Misc.Appeal No.137/2010, in which Appeal order dated 9.3.2010 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal was challenged.2. Order dated 9.3.2010, is an interim order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in an appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act No.54 of 2002'), in which appeal challenge is to action initiated by PNB as per notice dated 11.1.2008 to proceed under Section 13 of Act No.54 of 2002. By and under the order dated 9.3.2010 the Debt Recovery Tribunal has prima facie recorded that the recovery of the dues by the two secured credi...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »