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.
Mohd. Shamshi Vs. Airports Authority of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2011
1. The petitioner has filed the above noted writ petition seeking writ of mandamus for quashing the order dated 30th November, 2004 issued by the Executive Director, Airports Authority of India terminating the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner as Khalasi and for further directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to resume his duties on the post of Khalasi, with consequential benefits prior to the passing of the impugned order, also to regularize the service of the petitioner and for directions to the respondents to not break the service as per the impugned order. 2. According to the petitioner, by Order dated 19th February, 2001, on the approval of the competent authority, he was appointed on ad hoc basis to the post of Khalasi in the pay scale of Rs.2400- 3150, initially for a period of six months. According to him, his ad hoc appointment continued up to 31st December, 2001 as per the instructions contained in Corporate Headquarters Letter No. 12024/8/01-EH by order date...
M/S Goldy Construction Company Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2011
1. The writ petition impugns the Circular dated 27th November, 2008 of the respondent MCD intimating to the petitioner and others concerned of the petitioner having failed to honour its contractual obligations under the Work Order dated 8th December, 2006 (for construction of twelve (12) Class Rooms at M.C. Primary School, Baljeet Nagar in Karol Bagh Zone), and of the competent authority, vide order dated 7 th November, 2008 having debarred the petitioner from the approved panel of MCD for a period of three years. 2. Notice of the writ petition and of the application for interim relief was issued and counter affidavit filed by the respondent MCD. It was inter alia the contention of the petitioner that the notice to show cause leading to the order debarring the petitioner and the order debarring the petitioner had not been issued by the authority empowered to issue such a notice and order and the order debarring it was liable to be set aside on this ground alone. The respondent MCD file...
Anil Engineering Works Vs. Secretary Labour and Labour Commr. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2011
1. The writ petition impugns the award dated 4 th August, 2004 of the Industrial Adjudicator directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent no. 3 workman with continuity of service and full back wages. This Court vide interim order dated 28th November, 2005 stayed the operation of the said award. The said order has continued in force till now. 2. The respondent workman has in the application stated that since his illegal termination he has remained unemployed and has not been able to get employment anywhere. The application is accompanied with an affidavit in support of the contents thereof. 3. The petitioner in reply to the application though has pleaded that the respondent workman is employed elsewhere but has not been able to give particulars thereof. 4. In the circumstances, the necessary ingredients of Section 17B of the ID Act are satisfied. 5. The counsel for the petitioner invites attention to the order dated 13 th January, 2011 wherein it was recorded that the responden...
Sholay Media and Entertainment Pvt Ltd. and anr. Vs. Vodafone Esssar M ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2011
1. The film Sholay was produced by Sippy Films, a proprietorship concern of plaintiff No.2. Vide Gift Deed dated 14th September, 2000, all rights in the film Sholay were assigned/transferred by plaintiff No.2 to plaintiff No.1 and it is alleged in the plaint that plaintiff No.1 has been exploiting those rights across various verticals such as satellite broadcast, pay television, internet rights etc. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are cellular service provider, which are also offering various value added services such as ringtones, true tunes, caller tunes internet radio etc. to their subscribers. Ringtones are digitally created/recorded files that work as incoming alerts, true tones are digital audio files that act as incoming call alert where the subscriber hears the portions of song/music instead of the default ringing sound, caller tubes/ring back tunes are portions of sound-recordings of songs/dialogues, which the subscriber can choose for his caller to hear in lieu of the default ringing ...
Ex. Hc Jatan Singh Vs. Uoi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2011
1. The petitioner, a Head Constable with Central Reserve Police Force attached to the 71st Bn., was found to be a person of a high degree of teaching skills and thus was deputed to Assam Police as an instructor for training recruits and NCOs in handling SLR and other sophisticated Arms who were to join service under Assam Police. 2. He was repatriated by the authorities at the training centre of Assam Police to the 71st Bn. CRPF upon receipt of a complaint by the authorities there that on 1.12.1994 after consuming alcohol the petitioner created a nuisance in the barracks thereby affecting the morale and discipline of the trainees. 3. The Commandant of 71st Bn. issued a Memorandum of Charge dated 18.1.1995 to the petitioner listing 2 articles of charge as under:- "ARTICLE-I That the said No.800570203 Head Constable Jatan Singh of F/71 Bn. CRPF while functioning as a member of the Force and working as an Instructor on attachment to 15 Assam Police Battalion (IR) Jamugurihat, Sonitpur (As...
Kapco Arts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. World Expo and Conventions Management Ltd. an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2011
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.33,97,247/-. The plaintiff company is engaged in business of providing various exhibition related services including consultancy technical and architectural services to the organizers and participants. Defendant No.1 company is engaged in business of organizing the exhibitions at different places. Defendant No.2 is the Chairman of Defendant No.1 whereas Defendants No.3 & 4 are its Directors. Defendant No.5 is the Vice President of Defendant No.1. Pursuant to discussions between the parties, Defendant No.1 issued a letter of intent dated 30.5.1998 which was followed by a General Purchase Order (GPO) dated 20.6.1998 for construction of hangars and shells scheme stalls for various exhibitions scheduled to be held between July, 1998 and April, 1999. The contract awarded to the plaintiff company was in respect of 06 exhibitions, first of which was to be held at Chennai from 22nd July, 1998 to 26th July, 1998. As per the terms of the contract Defendan...
Shakuntala Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2011
1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 14th September, 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No. 2437/2004 titled as 'Shakuntala v. UOI and Ors.', dismissing the original application of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment after the death of her husband late Sh. Samay Chand, Draftsman, Grade-II, who died on 24th September, 2000. 2. The petitioner had challenged the communication dated 18th/23rd June, 2004 by which the respondents had rejected the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on account of non-availability of vacancy under 5% quota of compassionate appointment. While rejecting the request of the petitioner, reliance was also placed on DOP&T OM dated 5th May, 2003 prescribing the maximum time limit of three years for making the request. 3. The petitioner had submitted a request on 25th October, 2000 for compassionate appointment after the demise of her husband, late Sh. Samay Chand, Draftsman, Grade ...
Devendra Kumar and anr. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2011
1. In these two writ petitions, the controversy involved being common although the nature of challenge is from different spectrums, namely, one involving the interpretation of Rule 31(A) of the Bar Council of Delhi Election Rules, 1968 (for short „the Rules), while the other challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 31(A)(ii) of the said Rules, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a singular order. For the sake of convenience, we shall first advert to the facts in W.P.(C) No.1985/2011 where the assail is to the constitutional validity of the Rules and state the facts as they are common to both the cases and thereafter proceed to dwell upon the challenge to the action on the foundation of the interpretation placed upon by the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Presently to the commonality of the factual score and the grounds of attack in the backdrop of the constitutional validity of the Rule in question. The petitioner is a practising Advocate enrolled wit...
Bharat Gupta Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2011
1. The petitioner has filed the above noted writ petition seeking writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 30th November, 2004 issued by the Executive Director, Airports Authority of India terminating the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner as Junior Attendant (Office) and for further directions to the respondents to continue the petitioner on the post of Junior Office Attendant and also for directions to the respondents to accord similar treatment to the petitioner as has been accorded by the respondents to those, who have been appointed on regular basis. 2. According to the petitioner, by Order dated 11th January, 2001, on the approval of the competent authority, he was appointed on ad hoc basis as office attendant in the pay scale of Rs.2400-3300, initially for a period of six months. According to him, his ad hoc appointment continued up to 31st December, 2001 on approval of competent authority by order dated 17th July, 2001. Later on by order dated 3rd June, 2002, he was ag...
Mehtab Singh Vs. Uoi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2011
1. The petitioner was appointed as a constable with the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) in the year 1990 and after various postings he was posted at the CISF Unit, HFCL Barauni. On 13.1.1997 along with Ct K.R.S.Mai and Naik Jagdish Baitha he was detailed at the HFCL Main Gate for duty and undisputably one of the function assigned to the three was to frisk all those who would leave the precincts of HFCL Barauni to ensure that nothing was illegally taken out. At about 19.00 hrs, when petitioner and Naik Jagdish Baitha were admittedly on duty at the main gate and Ct.K.R.S.Mai had been sent away from the main gate by HC R.B.Mehto, one Kameshwar Sharma an employee of HFCL Barauni was statedly intercepted by SI R.K.Prasad and HC S.N.Rai as he emerged out of the main gate and was found carrying, in a plastic gunny bag, concealed within the folds of a blanket draped around his torso, 4 iron plates i.e. the goods allegedly belonging to HFCL Barauni. The said two i.e. SI R.K.Prasad and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »