Delhi Court April 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.
Shashi Kohli Vs. Director of Education and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2011
The petitioner was a Chemistry teacher in Delhi Public School. She attained the age of 60 years on July 31, 2010. It is not disputed that her age of retirement was 60 years. Her grievance is that a Notification dated January 29, 2007 was issued by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, Directorate of Education (in short, referred to as "GNCTD") allowing re-employment to all retiring teachers upto PGT level till they attain the age of 62 years and that despite the Notification, she has not been granted the benefit of re-employment without any cogent reason. Before I proceed further, let me reproduce the Notification. It runs as under:- "GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI, DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION, OLD SECRETARIAT, DELHI. No.F.30-3(28)/Co-Ord/2006/686-753 Dated: 29th January, 2007 NOTIFICATION In pursuance to Cabinet Decision No.113, dt. 4.9.2006 conveyed vide letter No.F.3/3/2004-GAD/CN/ 20491-502, dt. 8.9.2006, the Lieutenant Governor, Government of Natio...
M/S. Texem Engineering Vs. M/S. Texcomash Export
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2011
1. This Appeal assails the Order dated 13.8.2009 whereby the learned Single Judge had allowed the Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC for short) filed by the Defendant/Respondent and consequently had rejected the Plaint. It is apparent to us that the learned Single Judge was unshakably influenced by a document purporting to be a „Settlement between the parties which had been relied upon by the Plaintiff/Appellant and denied by the Defendant. The view of the learned Single Judge was that this document constituted an illegal contract inasmuch as the Plaintiff and his sister had agreed to give evidence favourable to the Defendant so that proceedings against the latter under the erstwhile Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), 1973 could be brought to an end. The learned Single Judge has pressed Sections 23 and 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 to arrive at the conclusion that such a Settlement or "contract cannot form the basis of a legit...
Cellular Operators Association of India and ors. Vs. Municipal Corpora ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2011
1. These writ petitions impugn Office Order dated 20 th November, 2003, Circular dated 7 th February, 2008 and the Office Order dated 8th April, 2010 of the respondent MCD levying fee and stipulating other conditions for grant of permission for installation of temporary structures / towers on rooftops for providing Cellular Basic Mobile Phone services. The Office Order dated 20th November, 2003 levied.One Time Permission Charges of `1 lac per site/tower and in case the site/tower was shared with other Cellular Phone Operator(s), an additional amount of `50,000/- per sharing; it also prescribed certain other conditions to be satisfied. However, the Lt. Governor, Delhi, in the light of certain reports that the said towers are a health hazard, vide order dated 13th September, 2007 directed the Municipality to keep fresh applications for permission for installation of towers in abeyance. Vide subsequent letter dated 10th January, 2008 the Lt. Governor permitted consideration of fresh appli...
Eveneet Singh Vs. Prashant Chaudhri and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2011
1. This Court had by its judgment and order dated 20.12.2010 disposed of certain applications in the two pending suits. 2. By the directions contained in that judgment, the Court had upheld the right of the plaintiff in one of the suits, (hereafter referred to as "Eveneet") to residence in terms of Section 17 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereafter referred to as "the Domestic Violence Act"). However, the Court, on a consideration of the other materials on record formed the opinion that it would be in the best interest of the parties that Eveneet should not continue to reside in the shared household, drawing inspiration from the judgment in Shumita Didi Sandhu v. Sanjay Singh Sandhu and Ors. FAO (OS) 341/2007 (decided on 26.10.2010), as well as Section 19(1)(f) of the Domestic Violence Act, and instead directed that she ought to be given alternative accommodation. As an interim measure, she was held entitled to ` 30,000/- per month (towards rent) over and...
Ms. Seema and ors. Vs. Sh. Surender Kumar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2011
1. In this proceeding, review of the order dated 02.09.2008 is sought. By that judgment and order, the Court had issued a preliminary decree, dividing the suit properties into five equal shares. The plaintiffs and the contesting defendants were held entitled to one-fifth share each. 2. The plaintiffs and the first defendant were children of late Dal Chand, who died on 23.01.1987, leaving behind a registered Will by which the properties were bequeathed to his widow - Kalawati. The estate comprised of two plots. On 27.03.2006, Kalawati died. The Court noticed that in the common Written Statement by the first defendant, (i.e. one of the sons of Kalawati, and brother of plaintiffs), and the second defendant, (the first defendant's wife), it was stated as follows: "XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX A) That the defendant no.1 has no objection for partition of suit property in equal shares amongst the plaintiff and defendant. However defendant no. 1 again has no objection to sell the said property failing...
Chander Prabha Sood Vs. Director of Education and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2011
The petitioner was a Hindi & Sanskrit teacher in Delhi Public School. She attained the age of 60 years on April 30, 2010. It is not disputed that her age of retirement was 60 years. Her grievance is that a Notification dated January 29, 2007 was issued by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, Directorate of Education (in short, referred to as "GNCTD") allowing re-employment to all retiring teachers upto PGT level till they attain the age of 62 years and that despite the Notification, she has not been granted the benefit of re-employment without any cogent reason. Before I proceed further, let me reproduce the Notification. It runs as under:- "GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI, DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION, OLD SECRETARIAT, DELHI. No.F.30-3(28)/Co-Ord/2006/686-753 Dated: 29th January, 2007 NOTIFICATION In pursuance to Cabinet Decision No.113, dt. 4.9.2006 conveyed vide letter No.F.3/3/2004-GAD/CN/ 20491-502, dt. 8.9.2006, the Lieutenant Governor, Governm...
Balwinder Singh Vs. Union of India and anr .
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2011
1. The prayer in this writ petition filed on 17th August 2010 is for a direction to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, i.e. Foreigner Regional Registration Offices („FRRO) and the Regional Passport Officer („RPO), Jalandhar to release all the documents seized from the Petitioner on 22nd February 2010; to make arrangements for departure of the Petitioner to Spain and for a direction to the Respondents to pay compensation for the mental agony and torture suffered by the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner holds an Indian passport issued by the Regional Passport Officer („RPO), Jalandhar (Respondent No. 13 herein) on 17th February 2006, valid upto 16th January 2016. The Petitioner was unemployed and had a desire to work abroad. He applied for a job at Jarona in Spain in 2007. The Petitioner was considered for the post of peon by a company at Jarona in Spain. He submitted necessary documents with the Embassy of Spain at New Delhi for issuance of work visa for Jarona in Spain. It is state...
Sir Ganga Ram Trust Society Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
1. This is the second round of litigation involving the Petitioners challenge to a decision dated 16th March 2001 passed by the Directorate General of Health Services (`DGHS) in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (`MHFW), Government of India, Respondent No. 5 withdrawing the customs duty exemption certificate (`CDEC) issued to the Petitioner for availing the benefit of exemption from payment of customs duty and additional duty of customs for importing/acquiring medical equipments for treatment of patients at the Sir Ganga Ram Hospital („SGRH) in New Delhi. Background facts 2. The Petitioner Sir Ganga Ram Trust Society (GRTS) is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is running the SGRH, a charitable institution, since 1954. According to the Petitioner, it does not have any corpus fund and all the income and profit from the SGRH is invested for the development of the SGRH. Further, the GRTS does not get any grant from any authority. 3. It is stated that o...
Sarla Devi Vs. Budhan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2006 which had reversed the finding of the trial judge. Vide judgment and decree dated 29.03.2005, the suit filed by the plaintiff, Sh.Budhan seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 22.05.2000 or in the alternate for recovery of Rs.1 lac had been dismissed. The impugned judgment had decreed the suit of the plaintiff; the decree in the sum of Rs. 1 lac had been passed in favour of the plaintiff along with the interest at 6% per annum. 2. Plaintiff had entered into an agreement to sell with the defendant; this was qua 45 sq. yards of property comprising of one room with latrine, bathroom measuring 16 ft. X 25 ft situate in Khasra No. 15 of Village Mandoli; total consideration agreed was Rs. 1,60,000/-; plaintiff had paid the sum of Rs. 50,000/- as an advance/earnest money. In terms of the aforestated agreement, the balance amount of Rs. 1, 10,000/- had to be paid by 25.08.2000, on which date the defendant was requ...
Bum Bahadur and anr. Vs. Dhiraj Kumar and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 26th October, 2010 passed in case No.05/10 titled "Bum Bahadur and Anr. vs. Dhiraj Kumar and Ors." 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at this stage. Since a short point is involved and the counsel for the parties are agreed that it will not be necessary to refer to the lower court records, the same have not been requisitioned. 3. The brief facts relevant for the decision of the present appeal are that on 22.12.2009 at about 2.30 a.m., one Monu suffered fatal injuries in a road accident which took place at Rohtak Road, 21, Dharam Colony, opposite Metro Station Nangloi, Delhi, when his motorcycle was struck by a tempo bearing No.DL-1LG-5711. The appellants, who are the parents of the deceased, filed a claim petition claiming a total sum of ` 20 lakhs by way of compensation from the respondents No.1 and 2, the owner and the driver respectively of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »