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.
Uoi Vs. Surinder Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2011
1. The petitioner, Union of India through the Secretary, Directorate of Health Services has challenged the order dated 5th December, 2007 passed in OA No. 2664/2006, MA No. 2365/2006 and MA No. 1617/2007 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi titled as „Sh. Surinder Kumar v. UOI & Ors., allowing the original application of the respondent and directing the petitioners to pay the difference of the salary of LDC to the respondent from 1991 to 2006. 2. Brief facts to comprehend the disputes are that the respondent was appointed in the Central Government Health Scheme as a Dresser (Group D) w.e.f. 19th April, 1979. He continued to work as a dresser till 1991 when he was posted in the Ayurvedic Hospital, Lodhi Road w.e.f. 14th March, 1991. The respondent had continued to work in the Ayurvedic hospital since then, however he was asked to perform the duties of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) w.e.f. 25th April, 1991 and thereafter the respondent continuously loo...
Ferdousi Rahman Vs. Union of India and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2011
1. This writ petition has been filed in respect of the detention of the petitioners husband Mosarraf Hossain (detenue) under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as „the COFEPOSA Act) by virtue of a detention order No. F 678/12/2010 - CUS/VIII dated 30.08.2010. Subsequent to the passing of the detention order, which was served on the detenue on 01.11.2010, the detenue has been lodged in the Presidency Jail (Correctional Home) Kolkata. His representation to the detaining authority against the said detention which was dated 12.11.2010 had also been rejected by the detaining authority on 08.12.2010. Pursuant to the Advisory Board opinion, the detention order has been confirmed under Section 8(f) of the COFEPOSA Act by an order dated 20.01.2011 continuing the detention for a period of one year from the date of detention. 2. Two grounds have been taken by the learned counsel appearing on behalf o...
G.P. Roy Vs. K. Mohan Das
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2011
1. Contempt is averred of the order dated 11 th July, 2006 in W.P.(C) No.10869/2006 stated to be still pending. On enquiry as to whether the order dated 11th July, 2006 was confirmed subsequently or not, the counsel states that no further order has been made. 2. The writ petition was filed impugning the appointment vide letter dated 3rd July, 2006 of Mr. Ranjit Lahiri as Chairman-cum-Managing Director (CMD) of M/s Hooghly Dock & Port Engineers Ltd. (HDPEL), Kolkata. The writ petition was accompanied with an application for interim relief. 3. This Court on 11th July, 2006 while issuing notice of the writ petition and the application for interim relief merely observed: "In the meantime, the impugned appointment of respondent no.3 will be subject to the result of this writ petition". 4. It is averred that vide communication dated 12 th/13th July, 2010 the Ministry of Shipping conveyed the sanction of the President of India to the appointment aforesaid of Mr. Lahiri w.e.f. 7 th July, ...
Ex Nb Sub Balraj Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2011
1. The applicant had filed WPC 15904/2006. The same was transferred to this Tribunal on 10th Nov 2009. In his application the applicant has prayed that the adverse remarks endorsed in his ACR for 2004 alongwith the figurative assessment of 3 marks and non-recommendation for promotion to the rank of Sub be quashed and he be promoted Sub w.e.f. June2004 i.e. the date his junior NB Sub Naresh Kumar, respondent No.5, was promoted. The applicant has also prayed that the order of COAS dt 31 Jan2006 (page 23), rejecting his statutory complaint, be quashed and he be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. 2. The applicant was enrolled in the Army on 23 Jan 1980. He was subsequently promoted Nb Sub in March 2003. The applicant states that in his ACR for 2003 he was graded high average and recommended for promotion both by IOs and RO. In his ACR for 2004 his IO graded him high average and recommended him for promotion. His RO, Col Naresh Kumar, respondent No.3, however, graded him...
United Brothers Vs. Aziz Ulghani and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2011
1. W.P. (C) No. 5220 of 2005 is by M/s. United Brothers ('UB'), a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of aluminium halloware and other household utensils since 1957, under the trade mark 'UNITED'. UB challenges an order dated 3rd December, 2004 passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board ('IPAB') dismissing its application No. TRA No. 92/2004/TM/DEL (C.O. No. 6/96) under Sections 46 and 56 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 ('TM Act 1958') for cancellation/removal of registration No. 388765 in Class 9 in respect of electric flat iron, granted for the mark 'UNITED' in favour of Respondent No. 1 Mr. Aziz Ulghani ('AU'), the sole proprietor of M/s. United Electric Co. ('UEC'). 2. W.P. (C) No. 2007 of 2010 is by AU the sole proprietor of UEC. The said petition challenges an order dated 28th January, 2010 passed by the IPAB dismissing an appeal TRA/177/2003/TM/DEL filed by AU against the order dated 7th December, 2000 of the Registrar of...
Murli Singh and Others Vs. Roomal and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2011
1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2007 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 16.04.2005whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Sh. Murli Singh seeking declaration and injunction (to the effect that the suit land be declared as an ancestral property and defendant nos. 3 to 5 be restrained from getting any sale deed executed in regard to the suit land; plaintiff be not dispossessed; further the agreement to sell dated 13.01.1961 and the decree dated 02.02.1973 in suit no. 395/1961 as modified in RFA no. 52/1973 and RFA No. 80/1973 be also declared null and void) had been decreed. Impugned judgment had reversed this finding; suit stood dismissed. 2. The plaintiffs (13 in number) and defendant nos. 1 and 2 are members of joint Hindu family; their common Ancestor was Tulsi (a) Popi. He had two sons namely Roomal and Jodha (defendant nos. 1 and 2 respectively). Plaintiff nos. 1 to 7 & 12 are the sons of defendant no. 1 and plaintiff no. 8 t...
M/S Creation DÉcor Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. S.i.D.B.i
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2011
1. By virtue of this writ petition a challenge is laid to the order dated 18.03.2011 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as „DRAT), whereby the judgment passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as „DRT) dated 31.10.2001, directing issuance of a recovery certificate in the sum of Rs 50,63,813/- against the petitioners has been sustained. In addition the DRT awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the decreetal amount from the date of filing of the suit, i.e., 20.06.2000 till the date of recovery. 2. Mr Sibal, who appeared for the petitioners before us, raised only one issue, which was, that the petitioners proposals for One Time Settlement (OTS) had been rejected by the respondent on the sole ground that it was purportedly a „willful defaulter. It was Mr Sibals contention that the Reserve Bank of India (in short „RBI) guidelines in that behalf are stipulated in its master circular dated 02.07.2009 (...
Shri Pradeep Khanna Vs. M/S Ashok Electric Company and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2011
1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2007 which had reversed the finding of the trial judge dated 19.04.2005 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff M/s Thermoking seeking recovery of Rs. 2,43,103.00/- had been decreed along with the interest at 6% per annum. The impugned judgment had reversed this finding. Suit of the plaintiff stood dismissed. 2. Plaintiff had filed the aforenoted suit for recovery of the aforenoted amount. Plaintiff was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of electrical appliances. Defendant no. 1 is the partnership firm of whom defendant nos. 2 to 6 are partners. Goods were purchased by the defendant from the plaintiff; vide bill dated 28.08.99, various electrical geysers were supplied by the plaintiff which were valued at Rs. 99,316.00/-. On 11.03.1999 again, electrical geysers were supplied to the defendant no. 1 vide bill dated 11.11.1999. Total bill which was raised on the defendant no. 1 was to the tune of Rs. 1,43,038.00/...
Shashi Saini Vs. Rajinder Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2011
1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2007 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 31.03.2005 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Rajinder Singh seeking permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering in plot measuring 450 sw. yards falling in khasra no. 818/1, West Vinod Nagar, D-Block, Delhi-92 (hereinafter referred to as „suit property) had been dismissed. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the recorded owner and in possession of the suit property. Defendants tried to take forcible possession of the suit property on 17.08.91; they could not succeed; threats continued. Suit was accordingly filed. 3. Defendant no. 1 was proceeded ex-parte. Defendant No.2 had contested the suit. It was stated that he is the owner of the property measuring about 385 sq. yards in the shape of 4 plots adjacent to each other and suit land falls in khasra no. 801, West Vinod Nagar, Mandawli, Fazalpur, Delhi and not in khasra no. 818/1 ...
Harish Chawla Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2011
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25th July, 2000 and 29th July, 2000 whereby the Appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 307 IPC and directed to undergo a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of `5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the Appellant is to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. The facts leading to the prosecution filing the charge-sheet are that on 19th June, 1998 at about 6:30 A.M. when the Complainant Vinod Kumar Gupta was present at his shop at 281/80 Pandav Road, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, the Appellant Harish Chawla with one Narender who knew him previously came to his shop and asked why he did not send money to him. On the Complainant replying that why he should pay the money, Harish Chawla took out a country-made pistol and fired at his right thigh protruding towards left in the skin of his thigh. On the Complainant escaping from the bullet injuries, Nar...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »