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.
Jingle Bell Amusement Park P. Ltd. Vs. North Delhi Power Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2011
1. The writ petition was filed impugning the demand of `34,34,594.77 towards arrears of electricity and of late payment surcharge of `5,22,873.64 thereon. However, when the writ petition came up before this Court on 28th November, 2007, the counsel for the respondent informed that erroneously double billing had been effected for the period of March, 2004 to February, 2005 and the amount due from the petitioner was `21,98,207/- only. Notice of the petition was issued and subject to the petitioner depositing `10,00,000/- with the respondent and paying the current consumption charges, recovery of the balance amount claimed by the respondent and disconnection of electric supply for non payment thereof was stayed. Pleadings have since been completed. The interim order was made absolute on 22nd May, 2009. The counsels for the parties have been heard.2. It is not in dispute that a non domestic electric connection of 80 KW bearing K No.43100137786 was energized at the premises of the petitione...
Ex.Const.Yogesh Kumar. Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2011
1. Vide memorandum dated 13.11.2007 a charge sheet was served upon the petitioner alleging that on 21.10.2007 at about 13:30 hours, with a lathi in his hand, he threatened to kill SI Kavindra Rawat and using filthy language chased Insp.Kavindra Rawat at Saraswati barrack.2. Amplifying the charge, as per the particulars of the charge annexed therewith it was stated that Insp.Vijay Gupta in-charge of sports of the NDRF Bn. had instructed SI Kavindra Rawat at 13:15 hours on 21.10.2007 to organize a cricket match between the NDRF Bn. Team and KRTC at 15:30 hours and had required SI Kavindra Rawat to inform Ct.Surender Sharma and when SI Kavindra Rawat entered Saraswati barrack to inform Ct.Surender Sharma who was not present at the barrack, petitioner chased SI Kavindra Rawat by abusing him and with the intention to kill him and when SI Kavindra Rawat ran to Saraswati barrack to save himself, Ct.Sarju Pal armed with a khukri joined in chasing SI Kavindra Rawat who ran towards Yamuna barrac...
Delhi State Vs. Road Master Industries India Pvt Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2011
VIKRAMAJIT SEN; SIDDHARTH MRIDUL , JJ.1. This Appeal assails the Order of the learned Single Judge, which we shall reproduce below for facility of reference:-1. Petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940 seeks reference to an arbitrator of the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent arising out of the agreement dated 7.10.1976.2. Petition has been filed in the year 1988.3. It is stated in para 16 of the petition that vide letter dated 28.7.1979, petitioner raised a demand against the respondent arising out of the contract and that vide letter dated 11.8.1979 defendant refuted the demand.4. A principal issue arises whether present petition is within limitation, for the reason, law is well settled. A party must move under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940 within a period of 3 years when dispute surfaces.5. A perusal of the petition shows that the chairman of the petitioner has appointed an arbitrator on 4.3.1980 which appointment was challenged by the responden...
Laxmi Devi and ors. Vs. State of Delhi.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2011
1. Criminal law was set into motion, when on 05.03.1995, at about 08.30 PM HC Harinder Singh PW-18, who was on picket duty in Seelampur area was informed by a person that an incident of quarrel and stabbing had taken place near Valmiki Mandir, C-Block, Seelampur, upon which HC Harinder Singh proceeded to the said spot where he saw a person named Hari Shankar (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) lying injured on the road and his father Ram Kumar bleeding from the head. HC Harinder Singh arranged a TSR and one Sansar Singh removed Ram Kumar and his son i.e. the deceased to GTB hospital in the said TSR. At that time, a bystander informed HC Harinder Singh that wife of Ram Kumar namely Shanti Devi was also injured in the incident in question and had already been removed to GTB hospital in a PCR van. HC Harinder Singh transmitted the aforesaid information through wireless to Police Station Seelam Pur where DD No.52B Ex.PW-21/DA was recorded; noting the aforesaid information.2. Being ha...
Gautam Sanyal Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2011
1. Challenge in this writ petition is directed against the General Court Martial proceedings dated 28.10.1986, whereby the petitioner was held guilty of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 52(f) and 63 of the Army Act and sentenced to be cashiered and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. On formation of the Armed Forces Tribunal, the writ petition had been transferred to this Tribunal and is treated as an appeal under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007. 2. The facts of the case as set out by the appellant in a nutshell are: After successfully holding varied appointments in the Army, including coveted posts of Instructor at the Madras Engineers Group Centre, Bangalore and also at the College of Military Engineering, Pune, the appellant was appointed as Garrison Engineer (Projects) No. 2 (GE (P) No. 2), Gurdaspur in April 1982. He carried out his duties with dedication and distinction and received letters of appreciation from the authorities. Su...
Delhi Transport Corporation. Vs. Sudan Pal.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-2011
1. W.P.(C) No.10800/2005 impugns the award dated 9 th July, 2004 of the Labour Court holding the petitioner DTC to have illegally terminated the services of the respondent workman and directing the petitioner DTC to reinstate the respondent workman with continuity of service and full back wages and other consequential benefits. W.P.(C) No.10938/2005 impugns the order dated 3 rd August, 2000 of the Labour Court dismissing the application of the petitioner DTC under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking approval of its disciplinary action resulting in removal of the respondent workman from service. The facts for the disciplinary action as well as of the dispute raised before the Labour Court are the same.2. The respondent workman was employed as a Conductor with the petitioner DTC. The charge against him was that on 17th June, 1991 he was on duty as a Conductor on route No.319; that the respondent workman while on duty on the said route, after covering a distance ...
Ex Cpl Madan Kr. Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2011
1. The challenge in this O.A is directed against the District Court Martial proceedings, whereby the appellant was held guilty of having committed 24 charges (out of 35 charges) and sentenced (a) to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month; (b) to be dismissed from service; and (c) to be reduced to the ranks. The statutory petition filed against the findings and sentence by the DCM ended in dismissal. 2. The facts as set out by the prosecution in a nutshell are: The appellant was enrolled in the Indian Air Force as Mechanical Transport Driver on 3.9.1996 and posted to 2251 Sqn Air Force on 30.8.1997. On 23.6.2008, while working at 2231 Sqn AF, he was tried on thirty five charges, which pertained to: (a) using insubordinate language to his superior officer; (b) disobeying a lawful command given by his superior officer by not parking the service vehicle at the road side and switching off the engine; (c) not following the instructions given to him by his superior officer at the parade g...
TeIn Singh DahiyA. Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2011
1. The undisputed fact is that the petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 9.3.1987 as a Havildar Clerk (GD) and after completing Basic Training was paid salary in acting rank of Havildar w.e.f. 23.06.1988 with ante-dated seniority effective from 26.03.1988.2. Deputed as a Clerk in the Quarter Master Section of 7015 Combined Workshop EME, on 29.07.1988, the petitioner was assigned additional duties as Coy Clerk of Recovery Company on 13.06.1990. Having become due for grant of substantive rank of Havildar w.e.f. 1.3.1990, petitioner was granted said substantive rank on 8.7.1990. 3. In August 1990, the Commanding Officer of 7015 Combined Workshop EME summarily tried the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 41 of the Army Act and for unexplainable reasons awarded punishment of reduction to the rank of Sepoy, little realizing that a penalty of reduction in rank cannot be given effect to when a person has earned no promotion.4. Realizing that the penalty levied was incap...
Smt. KavitA. Vs. Shri Rakesh Raman.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2011
1. By this appeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and decree dated 02.05.2009 whereby the petition filed by the respondent for divorce under Sections 13(1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed by the learned trial court in favour of the respondent and against the appellant.2. Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present appeal are that the parties got married on 16.4.94 in Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. It is the case of the respondent husband that the appellant wife started harassing him on one pretext or the other like demand for a separate residence, getting her pregnancy aborted without the consent of the respondent, alleging that her life has been ruined by marrying a simple clerk and other such imputations. It was also the case of the respondent that the appellant used to leave the matrimonial home time and again and hassled by the conduct of the appellant, the respond...
Faheem Ahmed. Vs. Maviya @ Luxmi.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2011
1. By this appeal filed under Section 39 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2008 passed by the learned trial court, whereby the petition filed by the respondent under Section 24(2) of the Special Marriage Act was allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case as set out in the petition relevant for deciding the present appeal are that the parties were friends since college days and were also subsequently classmates, pursuing a course together at the Gems Craft Jewellery Institute, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. As per the case of the respondent, she wanted to get the membership of the library in Jama Masjid and on the assurance of the appellant in helping her get the same, he persuaded her to convert to Islam for this purpose. That for this purpose, the respondent signed and executed certain documents which the appellant claimed to be the registration of marriage and conversion certificate and that by virtue of those the respondent be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »