Delhi Court April 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.
Sh. Upender Sharma Vs. Sh. Mangat Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2011
1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 06.01.2007 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 26.05.2005 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Upender Sharma seeking possession of the suit property i.e. property bearing no. 33, Gali No. 3&4, North Chhajju Pur, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property') along with the mesne profits had been decreed in favour of the plaintiff. 2. Plaintiff claimed himself to be the registered owner of the aforenoted suit property. The document of purchase was dated 15.06.1974. He had constructed the boundary wall, one room with ACC, one latrine, ACC shades and installed a hand pump. Defendant along with his servant was asked to look after the property as also the buffaloes of the plaintiff. Plaintiff had been running milk dairy at 1/4885, Balbir Nagar Extension, Sahara, Delhi up to the period of 1995-96; in this period, the defendant at the request of the plaintiff was living in this said suit property. There...
Bikanervala Foods Pvt Ltd Vs. Ministry of Textiles and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2011
1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 27th August 2010 passed by the Deputy Director (Handicrafts), office of the Development Commissioner (Handicrafts), Ministry of Textiles, Government of India rejecting the licence agreement dated 5th July 2010 and calling upon the Petitioner to surrender the premises given on licence on the next date, i.e., 28th August 2010. 2. While directing notice to issue in this petition on 30th August 2010 this Court directed status quo to be maintained. 3. Pursuant to the tender process, the Petitioner allotted space of 5800 sq.ft. at the Rajiv Gandhi Handicrafts Bhawan for running a multi-cuisine food court. An agreement was entered into on 28th August 2007 whereby the Petitioner was granted a licence for use of the premises for a period of three years. Clause 13.2 of the said agreement reads as under: "13.2 On the licensee making a request at least three months before the expiry of the agreed term of three years for extension of the license, sub...
Manish Mehta Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2011
1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2006 which had reversed the finding of the trial judge dated 02.08.2005. Vide judgment and decree dated 02.08.2005, the suit filed by the plaintiff Sh. Manish Mehta seeking recovery of `78,590/- had been decreed for a sum of ` 58,590/- along with the interest at 6 % per annum. This was reversed by the impugned judgment. Suit of the plaintiff stood dismissed. 2. Plaintiff had purchased the Hyundai Santro car bearing no. DL-5CB-3326 on the hire basis; the finance had been obtained from the M/s G.M.A.C. TCFC Finance Ltd. The vehicle was insured with defendant no. 3 vide Insurance Policy dated 01.08.2000. On 12.03.2001, the vehicle was stolen. FIR was lodged in the concerned police station. On 14.03.2001, information about theft was given to the finance company. It was also conveyed to defendant no. 3. Since the vehicle no longer remained in possession of the plaintiff, the hire installments were not paid by the plaintiff. In ...
Gandhi Smarak Nidhi Vs. S. Chandran
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2011
1. The writ petition impugns the award dated 29 th January, 2011 of the Industrial Adjudicator holding the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed by the petitioner on the respondent to be illegal and unjustified and directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with full back wages and continuity of service along with other consequential benefits from the date of compulsory retirement till the date of superannuation. 2. The Industrial Adjudicator found the inquiry conducted by the petitioner to be contrary to the Rules of the petitioner qua the manner/procedure for conducting such inquiry and accordingly held the enquiry to be bad. The petitioner did not opt to prove the alleged misconduct before the Industrial Adjudicator and accordingly the award came to be made. 3. The counsel for the petitioner has at the outset contended that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not applicable to the petitioner which is a Charitable Trust and the petitioner cannot be...
Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2011
1. The Petitioner Larsen & Toubro Limited („L&T) seeks the setting aside of an order dated 10th July 2003 of the Mines Tribunal dismissing its revision application challenging an order dated 27 th September 2001 passed by the Government of Orissa („GoO) (Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein) rejecting, inter alia, (i) its application dated 5th November 1995 for a Mining Lease („ML) for iron ore over an area of 611.58 hectares in Village Badamgarh Pahad, Sundergarh District (ii) its revision application dated 11th September 1997 for Prospecting Licence („PL) over an area of 540.475 hectares in Village Khajuridihi Reserve Forest, Sundergarh District and (iii) a further revised application dated 11th September 1997 for a PL over an area of 475.955 hectares in Village Rakma & Marsuan, Keonjhar District. Factual matrix 2. It is stated that sometime in 1995, the GoO made a promise to L&T that it would be allowed to use iron ore deposits for captive consumptio...
Sh. Mohd. Taj Vs. Sh. Miraz Ahmed and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2011
1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2006 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 25.08.2004 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Sh. Mohd. Taj seeking recovery of possession of the suit property bearing no. 856 Haveil Azam Khan, Chitli Qabar, Delhi along with the damages and mesne profits had been dismissed. 2. The plaintiff had averred that his father had started a factory of nickie polish and lathe in two rooms and dochatti on the ground floor of the suit property. The charge of running the factory was handed over to defendant no. 1 who was working as an apprenticeship with the father of the plaintiff. In 1974, defendant no. 1 asked the father of the plaintiff to allow him to run the said factory at his own risks and costs, which was accordingly permitted; defendant no. 1 was the licensee of the father of the plaintiff. After the death of the plaintiff's father, on 08.04.1981, plaintiff requested the defendant no. 1 to stop the user of t...
Montblanc Simplo-gmbh Vs. New Delhi Stationery Mart and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2011
1. This is an application filed by defendant No.2 for amendment of written statement. A large number of amendments are proposed to be made by the applicant in various paragraphs of the written statement, besides inserting certain additional paragraphs. 2. The application has been opposed by the plaintiff on the ground that some of the proposed amendments are in conflict with the order of the Supreme Court dated 20 th September 2010 and the proposed amendments are not necessary for complete and effective adjudication of controversy and issue involved in the present suit. 3. IA No.3419/2009 was filed by defendant No.2 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint. The application was dismissed vide order dated 13 th August 2009. A Review was, thereafter, filed by defendant No.2, which also came to be dismissed on 10th August 2010. A Special Leave Petition was filed by defendant No.2 in Supreme Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 20 th September 2010. While disposing ...
Aman Ahuja Vs. Mcd and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2011
1. All these petitions impugn the notices, all dated 13th April, 2011 issued by the respondent MCD notifying that the properties mentioned therein, all situated in Sanjay Nagar, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi are being misused for commercial/industrial purpose and calling upon the owners/occupants of the said properties to stop the misuse within 48 hours failing which they have been threatened that the properties shall be sealed. The notice further states that the same has been issued in pursuance to the orders dated 16th February, 2006/24th March, 2006/11th March, 2008 of the Apex Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India directing MCD to take sealing action against misusers. 2. The counsels for the respondent MCD appearing on advance notice inform that in pursuance to the said notices the properties subject matter of W.P.(C) No.2722, 2723, 2725, 2727 ,2728 ,2729, 2731, 2733/2011 have already been sealed. 3. It is further informed that the properties subject matter of the W.P.(C) No.2718, 2...
Sh.Shri Bhagwan Vs. Gaon Sabha of Village Nasirpur and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2011
1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 23.4.2007 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 17.3.2003 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Shri Bhagwan seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant (Gaon Sabha Nasirpur) had been dismissed. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that Khasra No.384 measuring 1 bigha 2 biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Nasirpur was in the recorded ownership of one Kheemoo and Shanker both sons of Malook Chand, both had equal share. Kheemoo died living behind his brother Shanker who is the father of the plaintiff and the sole legal heir of Kheemoo. Father of the plaintiff thus became exclusive owner of the aforenoted suit property. Contention is that under some misconception the Halka Patwari had recorded the suit land as "Gair Mumkin shore"; result was that the Revenue Assistant treated this land as waste land and vested the same in the Gaon Sabha. The suit land had a kucha boundary; it was t...
Jaga Ram Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2011
1. In the instant writ petition the petitioner has sought mandamus to quash letter dated 23.07.2010 consequently directing the respondent No.2 (CRPF) to accept the request of respondent No.3 (CBI) and issue no objection for permanent absorption of the petitioner in CBI. 2. The facts of the present case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable (GD) in CRPF vide his appointment letter dated 18.01.1994. 3. Vide order dated 19.02.2004 respondent No.3 (CBI) requested respondent No.2 (CRPF) for necessary sanction for deputation of the petitioner in CBI initially for a period of three years, which was approved by respondent No.2 (CRPF). On 11.03.2004 a movement order was issued by respondent No.2 (CRPF) with directions to the petitioner to report to the Superintendent of Police, CBI SC-II, Block No.3, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Pursuant to the aforesaid movement order the petitioner joined CBI on deputation on 12.03.2004. 4. Thereafter vide letter dated 01.12.2006 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »