Delhi Court May 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.
WasimuddIn Vs. Uoi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2011
1. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent no.2 IDBI Bank Ltd. (IDBI) to appoint the petitioner to the post for which he had been selected i.e. of Assistant Manager Grade-A. 2. Notice of the petition was issued. Counter affidavit has been filed. The petitioner on 11th January, 2011 stated that he did not wish to file any rejoinder thereto. 3. The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the respondent no.2 IDBI inviting applications for various posts, he had applied for the post of Assistant Manager Grade-A and had appeared in the written test held for the said purpose and was vide e-mail dated 27th April, 2009 of respondent no.2 IDBI directed to appear for Personal Interview. It is further the case of the petitioner that post interview, he was vide e-mail dated 21st July, 2009 of the respondent no.2 IDBI "advised" that he had been found "prima facie eligible" for the said post based on his performance in the Written Test and Interview and t...
Shis Ram Vs. Chief General Manager State Bank of India and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2011
1. The petitioner impugns the award dated 18 th June, 2010 of the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference: "Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Sh. Shish Ram S/o Sh. Mahavir Singh, Sorter-cum-Messenger w.e.f. 2003 is just and legal? If not what relief the workman is entitled to." as under: "In view of the foregoing discussions, it is evident that the claimant has miserably failed to establish that he was appointed against a post, on which he has a right to continue. He could not show that his disengagement amounted to retrenchment. He could not attribute any illegality, unjustifiability or impropriety to the action of the Management in terminating his services. His claim is devoid of merits. The same is dismissed. An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication." 2. The petitioner claims that he was working as a Sorter-cum- Messenger with effect from 1st January, 1995 in the Cant...
Subodh Sinha Vs. State of Nct Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2011
1. The petitioner, at the time of the filing of this writ petition being a teacher employed with the respondent no.3 Cambridge Primary School and since retired on attaining the age of superannuation, preferred this writ petition seeking, (i) mandamus directing the respondent no.3 School to implement the orders dated 18th July, 2009 and 2nd September, 2009 of the respondent no.2 Directorate of Education (DoE), Govt. of NCT of Delhi and fixing the salary of the petitioner with effect from 1 st January, 1996 in accordance therewith; (ii) relief of quashing of the communication dated 15th November, 2008 of the respondent no.3 School denying the claim of the petitioner; and, (iii) the relief of directing the respondent no.3 School to make the contribution to the Provident Fund of the petitioner in accordance with the revised scale.2. Notice of the writ petition was issued and pleadings have been completed. The counsels have been heard. 3. The respondent no.2 DoE on representation of the ...
Sh. Surender Kumar Chawla Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2011
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the orders dated 13.11.2001 and 6.11.2003 passed by the learned Estate Officer and the order dated 05.10.2005 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge. 2. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present petition is that the impugned orders passed by both the courts below are clearly erroneous as both the courts below failed to consider the basic issue raised by the petitioner that the petitioner could not carry on the business of running the meat shop as he was not granted the license by the MCD on account of the fact that the size of the shop did not conform to the size requirements as were laid down by the MCD for running a meat shop. The petitioner has also submitted that the Delhi Vidyut Board and the CPWD failed to provide any basic amenities in the Vasant Vihar Shopping complex where the shop in question was located. The petitioner also submitted that he had applied...
Ex Rfn Chander Prakash Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2011
1. The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was brought quashing of SCM proceedings held on 1 Feb 1995 against the appellant whereby he was held guilty for the offence u/s 304 A IPC and also for causing death of Hav Baldev Singh by rash and negligent act and also u/s 55 (a) of the Army Act for willfully destroying the Rifle registered No. CU-3084 which was the property of the Govt. and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year, dismissed from service, forfeiture of all arrear of pay and allowances and other dues payable to him, and also for recovery of the amount of Rs.10,000/- the cost of self-loading rifle registered no. CU-3084. The writ petition was transferred to this Tribunal after enforcement of Armed Force Tribunal Act, 2007 (which is hereinafter to be called the Act) and was treated to be an Appeal u/s 15 of Armed Force Tribunal Act. 2. It is said that the appellant was falsely implicated in this case. As a matter of fact, he was accompanying the d...
Ex Cdre. Narinder Pandit Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2011
1. In this case (W.P No. 5685 of 1998) filed before the Delhi High Court, the challenge is directed against the findings and sentence of the court martial dated 8.6.2004, whereby the petitioner was found guilty of Charge Nos. 1 and 2 under Navy Act Section 60(d), Charge Nos. 8 and 9 under Navy Act Section 54(2), Charge Nos. 3, 10 and 12 under Section 13()1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 read in conjunction with Navy Act Section 77(2) and Charge Nos.4, 5 and 6 under Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 read in conjunction with Navy Act Section 77(2) and sentenced (i) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eighteen calendar months, (ii) to be dismissed from naval service (iii) to forfeit 36 calendar months seniority in the substantive rank of Captain and (iv) to pay a fine of Rs.3 lakhs with default clause. On formation of this Tribunal, the said writ petition was transferred to this Bench and treated it to be an appeal (T.A No. 365 of 2009)...
Sgt Mohanti Bk Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2011
1. The appellant had filed WPC 6120/00 in the Honble Delhi High Court. The same was transferred to this Tribunal on 21 Oct, 2009. The appellant has appealed against the findings, conviction and sentence of DCM which commenced on 27 March 1996 and prayed that the same be quashed and he be reinstated in service. 2. The appellant was enrolled in the IAF on 10 Dec 1979 and was subsequently promoted to Sgt on 1Feb 1990. While serving at 1 Wg IAF the appellant states that he brought several irregularities to the notice of the superiors who, for this reason, became inimical towards him. The appellant on 2nd Nov 1995 submitted a redressal of grievances (ROG) and requested for his immediate discharge from the IAF. 3. The appellant states that while he was serving in 2202 Sqn, Air Commodre R D Limaye took over as Station Cdr No. 1 Wg on 26 Sept 1995. The appellant states that he was detailed to perform guard duty on 20 Dec 1995. He states that this was an unauthorised duty since officers and Sgt...
Smt. Janki Devi and Others Vs. Shri Harish Chander Chawla
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2011
1. By this appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the appellants seek to challenge the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2004 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi whereby the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 03.09.1997 was decreed in favour of the respondent and against the appellants alongwith Rs.1,80,000/- for recovery and Rs.20,000/- towards damages from 1.10.2000 till realization along with interest @5% p.a. 2. Brief facts of the case as set out by the respondent in the plaint are that the appellants vide agreement to sell dated 3.9.97 had agreed to sell the first floor of the property bearing no. 11/16, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi with proportionate land underneath to the respondent for a total consideration of Rs.3,10,000/-. Out of the said sale consideration amount, an amount of Rs 3,00,000 was paid by the respondent on 3.9.97, while the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid vide receipt dated 4.9.97 and a number ...
Satya Prakash Shukla Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2011
1. The petitioner was employed as a Constable with the Railway Protection Force and was admittedly on duty along with Naik Laxmi Narain and Ct.Harbans Singh on the intervening night of 18th and 19th January 1996 from 1800 hours i.e. 6:00 PM of 18.1.1996 till 0600 hours of 19.1.1996. The petitioner admits so. 2. Naik Laxmi Narain had to ring up the Control Room inasmuch as he found petitioner having left place of duty. ASI Ramjit posted as Night Shift Officer responded and went to the place where petitioner, Naik Laxmi Narain and Ct.Harbans Singh were on duty and went to locate the petitioner he learnt from the gateman of age No.413, namely Sh.Devinder Singh, that the petitioner had gone towards a liquor vend. The petitioner was found in a state of high intoxication and when ASI Ramjit was recording the statements of the gateman the petitioner ran away. 3. The petitioner was charge-sheeted as under:- "Statement of article of charge framed against Constable Satya Prakash Shukla, RPF, Co...
Smt. Siya Wati and ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2011
1. By way of this appeal, the appellants seek enhancement of the compensation awarded to them by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 22nd March, 2000 on account of the death of Shri Chand Singh in a road accident. 2. The sole submission of Mr. Navneet Goyal, the learned counsel for the appellants, is that a very meagre amount of compensation was awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal by adopting a wrong method of calculating the loss of dependency of the appellants, who are the widow of the deceased, his six children and his father. According to him, after calculating the monthly earnings of the deceased, who was a teacher in Government High School in Jharsa, Gurgaon, to be in the sum of ` 6,600/- per month (after deduction of tax and after taking into account his anticipated future earnings), the Claims Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd of the aforesaid amount for the personal expenses of the deceased himself. It is contended by the learned counsel for ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »