Delhi Court May 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.
Vineet Mehta Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2011
1. Petitioner claims that after serving in Kupwara (J & K) he came on a normal posting to Delhi and that this was the first posting in Delhi after petitioner put in 141/2 years' service. 2. As per the petitioner his wife could not conceive due to some medical problems and for which IVF treatment was undertaken and that on medical grounds he was retained at Delhi after 2 years posting at Delhi came to an end. 3. Though the dates have not been mentioned in the writ petition we note that the petitioner came by way of transfer to Delhi in December 2007 and completed 2 years' tenure in December 2009. 4. Petitioner claimed that on medical grounds so that IVF treatment could be undertaken to enable his wife to conceive, he was granted extension of tenure in Delhi on medical grounds for one year and which we note would come to an end by December 2010. Petitioner claims that he is entitled to the benefit of the transfer posting policy as per which, on compassionate grounds, he would be enti...
Union of India and anr. Vs. K.S. Parmar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2011
1. In the present writ petition, the assail is to the order dated 3rd February, 2011 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (tribunal, for short) allowing O.A. No. 2201/2010, filed by the respondent. Tribunal has quashed the order dated 12th January, 2009 passed by the revisionary authority enhancing the punishment to compulsory retirement with full pensionary benefit and restored the original penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority, and confirmed by the appellate authority, of reversion to grade of Rs.3200- 4900 and fixing the pay of the respondent at Rs.3200/- for a period of three years with cumulative effect. 2. The respondent, K.S. Parmar, was proceeded departmentally and the aforesaid punishment was imposed by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 21st November, 2006 and confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 7th April, 2007. The respondent thereafter filed a revision petition hoping for reduction in penalty but the revisi...
Dhawandeep Residents Welfare Association (Regd.) Vs. Union of India an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2011
1. The present public interest litigation writ petition has been filed by Dhawandeep Residents Welfare Association, representing residents of the Dhawandeep Building located at the Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi. Their grievance is that the respondents, which includes New Delhi Municipal Council, Commissioner of Police, have miserably failed to ensure that the residents of Dhawandeep Building are not obstructed or prevented from using the road and allowed ingress and egress to and from their building. It is submitted that the respondents have failed to ensure cleanliness as processions and dharnas are held almost throughout the year and the streets get littered and there is stagnant water and constant sloganeering. It is submitted that some protesters even put up tents/temporary shelters. These protesters bathe, sleep, cook near the building for months together creating unhygienic conditions. Some photographs have been filed by the petitioners. The following reliefs are prayed for :- "a...
Dhananjay Singh Bhadoria Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2011
1. The Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.11.2010 and order on sentence dated 16.11.2010 in Sessions Case No.135/06/04 FIR No.349/2003 & Session Case No. 136/06/04 FIR No. 367/2003, which was disposed of by this common judgment whereby the Appellant was held guilty under various provisions of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment which are extracted from Para 5 of the order on sentence hereunder:- "Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, convict Dhananjay Singh Bhadoria is awarded sentences as under:- (i) Life imprisonment with fine of ` 10,000/- for offence under section 302 IPC in case FIR No.349/03. In default of payment of fine, the convict shall undergo SI for three months. (ii) Rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of ` 5,000/- for offence under section 392 IPC in case FIR No.349/03. In default of payment of fine, the convict shall undergo SI for two months. (iii) Rigorous imprisonment for five years for off...
Adesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Sh. D.K. Mishra and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2011
I.A. Nos. 13850/2009 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. I.A. Nos. 13851/2009 (U/S 81(3), 82 and 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951) in El. Pet. 20/2009 1. This order will dispose of the application filed by the respondent (to the Election Petition), being I.A. No. 13851/2009. 2. The petitioner challenges the election of the second respondent to the New Delhi Parliamentary Constituency on the ground that he, his election agents, and others connected with him had indulged in corrupt practices within the meaning of the expression, in the 2009 Lok Sabha Elections. It is alleged that the second respondent blatantly flouted the mandate of law by failing to keep correct and full accounts of his expenditure, thus violating Sections 77(1) and 77(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (hereafter "the Act") which amounted to corrupt practice under Section 123(6). It is alleged that the expenditure exceeded the statutory limit of ` 25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lakhs) p...
Victor Bennet Vs. Uoi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2011
1. The petitioner was enlisted as a constable with the Central Reserve Police Force on 30.04.1991. A complaint was made against the petitioner by Havaldar Gulab Singh and Havaldar Azad Singh stating that on 3.2.2009, in a state of intoxication, the petitioner assaulted the said two Head Constables. 2. DIG CRPF directed disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against the petitioner and under cover of memo dated 12.3.2009 issued the charge-sheet alleging two charges against the petitioner. The first was of being found drunk at 15:00 hours on 3.2.2009 while posted as a Constable GD stated to be punishable under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act 1949 and the second charge was of behaving improperly with Azad Singh and Gulab Singh and slapping the two at the same time and the same date as per charge No.1, which act was stated to be punishable under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act. 3. Vide office order dated Nil.3.2009 D.V.Makvana Assistant Commandant was appointed as the Inquiry Officer to recor...
Debashish Bhattacharya Vs. Uoi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties at the preliminary admission stage itself. 2. Since petitioner has filed all relevant documents, with consent of learned counsel the matter is disposed of at the first hearing. 3. Vide charge memorandum dated 16.12.2008 the petitioner was charged as under:- "Charge Article I Force No.024850030 Constable D.Bhattacharya was ordered for duty at SHA Gate No.2 on 23.11.08 from 20:00 to 24.11.08 upto 07:00 hrs. and at SHA Gate No.11 on 25.11.08 in day shift, but he remained absent from duty on both the dates without the permission of competent authority. Thereafter, Constable Mohd.S.D.Wajid Khan was deputed in his place on 23.11.08 and Constable Satnam Singh on 25.11.08, which is confirmed as per report registered in Roznamcha No.994 and 995 on 23.11.08 at 20:06 and 20:10 hrs. and the Report No.158 dated 23.11.08 sent by the Company Commander C Company. The above said act of Force No.024850030 Constable D.Bhattacharya, being a member of disciplined fo...
M/S. J.B. Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the General Manager, Centra ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2011
1. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the impugned order dated 19.5.2010 passed by the AAIFR on an appeal of the petitioner. We may note that since some common questions of law were involved a number of appeals had been dealt with in this common order though facts of each case had been dealt with separately. 2. We may note that the petitioner had laid a challenge to the impugned order earlier by filing WP (C) No.613/2011, which was listed for the first time on 1.2.2011 when learned counsel sought to withdraw the writ petition with leave to file a proper petition setting out the complete facts along with the relevant documents. We have recorded that the ambiguity in the writ petition inter alia was on account of the issue whether there was not even a second charge created in favour of Central Bank of India (for short CBI). The present writ petition has now been filed after three and a half months of that order. We may also note that even...
Surender Kaur and Others Vs. S. Pritipal Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2011
1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 28.01.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge whereby the suit filed by the appellants seeking declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed by the trial court on an application filed by the respondent under order VII Rule 11 CPC as being barred by law. The trial court in its order dated 28.01.2010 observed: When as per paragraph no. 31 of the order of the Supreme Court dated 18.12.2009, beside the question of limitation other special grounds and reasons taken in the leave to defend application were considered and eviction order was confirmed then there exists no cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs to file the present suit which is barred under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. This suit is not maintainable being hit by the provisions of section 43 of DRC Act and is liable to be dismissed. The second ground taken in the application regarding improper valuation of the suit need not be considered in such situation where...
Uoi and anr. Vs. Indian Railways Civil Engineering Officer Association ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2011
1. Regard being had to the similarity of issue that has emerged in these writ petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed by a common order. The fulcrum of controversy rests upon the adjudication of the issue whether the delay in convening the meetings of the Departmental Promotion Committees (DPCs) by the respondent, Railway Board, was due to reasons beyond control or because of administrative delay for which the respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short the tribunal) was held to be responsible and what would be the consequence if the delay was caused due to the employer. At the very outset, we may note with profit that the Original Application No.2140/2009 preferred by Mr. N.P. Gupta and others which is the subject matter of WP(C) No.2855/2011 was dismissed by the tribunal on the foundation that the delay caused in holding of the meetings of the DPCs was genuine and beyond the control of the authorities and, therefore, the promotion would be pros...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »