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.
Devinder Kumar Gupta Vs. Realogy Corporation and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2011
1. This is a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and damages. The plaintiff is the Chairman and Managing Director of defendant No. 2, which entered into an agreement with defendant No.1, whereby defendant No. 2 was granted exclusive licence/right to sub-licence the "Century 21" trademark and "Century 21 system" to real estate brokers in 5 out of 7 territories in India. Subsequently, the licence was extended to remaining 2 territories as well. The plaintiff vide Guarantee and Indemnification Agreement dated 24th October, 2007, guaranteed the payment obligations of defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 1. There is an arbitration clause in the agreement between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2, whereunder all controversies, disputes or claims arising in connection with, from or with respect to the agreement between them, unless resolved within 15 business days after either party notifying the other party of such controversy, dispute or claim, are to be submitted for arbitration to Ne...
Satvir and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2011
1. As per the prosecution 7 persons; Ram Kishan, his two sons Satbir and Satish, his brother Jai Singh and 3 friends of the sons of Ram Kishan i.e. Prem Chand, Raj Kumar and Girdhari had acted pursuant to a common intention to abduct and cause the death of Ravi Kant and gave effect to their evil design on 28.1.1991. 2. Whereas Girdhari was declared a proclaimed offender, the remaining 6 suffered a trial for offences punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 364/34 IPC. 3. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 12.2.1999, Ram Kishan and Prem Chand have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and for unexplainable reasons we find that the learned Trial Judge has also convicted Girdhari who was declared a proclaimed offender for the said offence, which he could not do inasmuch as the reason is obvious. The two have also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 364/34 IPC and so have the other 4 accused who faced trial along with them. Vide o...
Dr. Vasdev Narang Vs. the Lt. Governor Gnct of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2011
1. The petitioner employed as an Associate Professor with the respondent no.4 Sri Aurobindo College (M), Malviya Nagar, New Delhi affiliated to the respondent no.2 University of Delhi, was charged with sexual harassment and the College Complaints Committee (CCC) constituted in accordance with Ordinance XV-D (dealing with Sexual Harassment) of the Calendar of the Delhi University, in its report dated 27th March, 2010 found the petitioner guilty and recommended his dismissal from service. 2. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Apex Complaints Committee (ACC) also in accordance with Ordinance XV-D (supra),which has vide order dated 20th December, 2010 confirmed the findings of the CCC and also found the petitioner guilty of sexual harassment but not agreed with the punishment recommended by the CCC; it was observed that considering the nature of the acts of sexual harassment committed by the petitioner, dismissal from service would be an excessive punishment; accordingly the ACC has...
Parbandhak Committee Vs. Mool Raj Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2011
1. This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against the order dated 19- 02-10 passed by the Additional Rent Controller whereby an eviction order was passed against it in respect of a portion of premises no.E-5/5, Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the tenanted premises') after dismissing its application for grant of leave to contest the eviction petition filed on the ground of bona fide requirement by the respondent herein. 2. The petitioner-tenant has been running a charitable dispensary in the tenanted premises for over forty years. Municipal Corporation of Delhi has been giving some financial aid to the petitioner-tenant for the running of the charitable dispensary. As per the case of the respondent, the said property belonged to his father and after his death a partition suit was filed in Court in which a decree of partition had been passed in the year 2007 according to which he had bec...
M/S Mvl Industries Ltd. Vs. Harendra Singh and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2011
1. The writ petition impugns the award dated 3 rd December, 2010 of the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference: "Whether the services of Sh. Harender Singh s/o Late Sh. Banwari Singh have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the Management, if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?" in favour of the respondent workman and against the petitioner employer but granting the relief only of `1 lac by way of lump-sum compensation to the respondent workman and against the petitioner employer. 2. The respondent no.1 workman was employed as a driver with the petitioner employer at the last drawn salary of `3,850/- per month for four years when in December, 2002, according to the respondent workman, his services were illegally terminated and according to the petitioner employer, the respondent workman started absenting from duty and failed to resume duty despite various letters sent to him. It was also the case of the petitione...
N and S and N Consultants S.R.O Vs. Srm Exploration Private Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2011
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 433(e) read with Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') for winding up of the respondent-company. 2. The relevant facts of the present case are that the petitioner is a company incorporated under the laws of Czech Republic. It owns 100% equity shares in another Czech Republic company, namely, SP of W, a.s. 3. On 15th March, 2007, petitioner-company executed a Stock Purchase and Sale Agreement (for short 'Agreement') with M/s. Newco Prague, s.r.o. (hereinafter referred to as 'Purchaser') for sale of 100% equity interest of SP of W, a.s. at the purchase price of CZK 230,000,000. It is pertinent to mention that the Purchaser is also incorporated and established under the laws of Czech Republic. The above purchase price was to be paid by the Purchaser company in terms of Clause 3.1.1. in four installments. The said clause is reproduced hereinbelow:- 3.1.1.1 Payment of Purchase Price. The Purchase Price up to the agr...
Rajender Singh and anr. Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2011
1. Petitioners Rajender Singh and Pan Singh who have joined in a common action in WP(C) 4969/2010 were employed as Constables with ITBP and the latter earned promotion firstly as Naik and thereafter as Head Constable. Both were permitted to proceed on deputation to Intelligence Bureau where they desire permanent absorption which is accepted by the Intelligence Bureau but refused by ITBP and as per the respondents rightly, inasmuch as none of them meets the eligibility criteria prescribed by ITBP to permit absorption of ITBP Force Personnel in other organizations. 2. Jaswinder Singh the writ petitioner of WP(C) 7312/2010 is similarly situate as Rajender Singh and Pan Singh. He too is a Constable in ITBP and being permitted to proceed on deputation with Intelligence Bureau seeks a right to be absorbed in said organization which has no objection to the same, but ITBP objects on the same reasoning as forms the basis of the opposition to the claim of Rajender Singh and Pan Singh. 3. Petitio...
Vidur Malik Vs. Ritika Book House
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2011
1. The petition impugns the award dated 27th January, 2010 of the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference: "Whether Sh. Vidur Malik, S/o Sh. K.K. Malik has abandoned his services or his services have been terminated illegally and / or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?" against the petitioner workman. 2. The writ petition has been filed after more than one year and three months of the award. No explanation whatsoever has been furnished for the said unusual delay in filing this writ petition. A workman whose employment is claimed to have been illegally and unjustifiably terminated is not expected to so delay the proceedings and the delay is indicative of the present litigation being by way of wager. 3. Admittedly the alleged termination was in the year 1995. The record shows that the first missive thereafter in the form of letter / legal notice was sent by the petitioner workman only afte...
Hav/Clerk Y.N.Sharma Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2011
1. Though none appears for the petitioner at the hearing today, having perused the impugned order and the pleadings relatable thereto, we are constraint to remand the matter to the Tribunal after setting aside the impugned order dated 04.02.2011 and as a consequence restore T.A. No.394/2009 for fresh adjudication by the Armed Forces Tribunal. 2. Relevant facts are that enlisted as a Senior Non- Commission Officer in the recruiting organization of the Indian Army on 20.01.1962 petitioner was promoted as a Naik on 12.05.1963 and as a Havaldar 02.09.1969. Initiating court marshal proceedings against him and finding him guilty punishment of reduction to the ranks, RI for 2 years and dismissal from service was passed, petitioners writ petition filed being WP (C) No.257/1982 came to be allowed vide order dated 30.03.1987 requiring petitioner to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. The decision attained finality. 3. A dispute arose for the reason restoring the rank of Hav...
University of Delhi Vs. Varun Kapur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2011
1. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 10.3.2001 writ petitions filed by the respondents have been allowed and a declaration has been granted that the respondents are entitled to a confirmation of their provisional admission and thereby permit them to take the ensuing semester end term examination as per rules. 2. Issue pertains to the admission to the Bachelor of Law (LLB) course in the University of Delhi for the academic year 2010-11, eligibility whereof as per bulletin information issued by the appellant mandated that the candidate must have either a Graduate or a Post-Graduate degree of any recognized University or equivalent degree with at least 50% marks. Admission was as per merit obtained at an Entrance Test. Since by the date the results of the entrance exam were declared and admissions effected it was known to the University that quite a few final year results pertaining to Graduate or Post-Graduate courses are not declared, those who successfully cleared the entrance exa...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »