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.
Nazmal Hasan Siddiqui Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2011
1. Vide order dated 12.5.2009, stating that the petitioner had been declared permanently invalidated, he was discharged from service against which representation filed has been negated vide order dated 10.11.2010, both of which are under challenge in the instant writ petition. 2. The petitioner alleges mala fide against Commandant Smt.Aparajita R. and claims that she is the culprit and in support of said allegation, factual matrix presented by the petitioner in the pleadings is that she was the officer who was responsible for transferring the petitioner to the 128th CRPC Bn. at Guwahati knowing fully well that petitioner and his wife were working at the 107th Bn. at Delhi. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court in which directions were issued that the policy requiring husband and wife to be both posted at one station should be kept in view by the department and transfer-posting be reconsidered and when the department did not do the needful he was constrain...
G.Seenivasagam Vs. Inspector General and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2011
1. Petitioner, G.Seenivasagam was enrolled as constable with CRPF on 17.12.1992. On 29.05.2001 a charge memo was issued to him listing 3 articles of charge against him as under:- "ARTICLE-I "That the said No.920420548 Ct/GD G.Seenivasagam of E/61 Bn. CRPF while functioning as Ct/GD committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as member of the Force U/S 11 (1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that he had beaten and abused No.680450474 SI Daya Chand of his Coy on 17.10.2000 which is prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Force." ARTICLE-II "That the said No.920420548 Ct/GD G.Seenivasagam of E/61 Bn. CRPF while functioning as Ct/GD committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force U/S 11 (1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 in that he remained OSL w.e.f. 21.03.2001 to 04.04.2001 without permission of the competent authority which is prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Force." ARTICLE-III "That the said No.920420548 Ct/GD G.Seenivasagam of E/61 Bn. CRPF while ...
Best Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2011
30.05.2011 CM No. 20784 of 2010 (for amendment) The amendments prayed for are with respect to addition of two grounds which raise questions of law. For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed. The writ petition is permitted to be amended. The amended writ petition is taken on record. The application is disposed of. W.P. (C) 639 of 2009 Background Facts 1. Best Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. (BLPL) challenges an order dated 7 th February 2006 issued by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) Respondent No. 2 herein under Paragraph 9(1) of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995 (DPCO 1995) fixing ceiling prices for certain multi-vitamin formulations and the consequential demand dated 27th November 2008 issued by the NPPA requiring the Petitioner to deposit Rs. 1,41,57,104/- towards overcharging amount and interest up to October 2008. 2. BLPL is registered as a small-scale industrial unit. BLPL claims that it is entitled to exemption by an order dated 2nd March 1995 i...
Union of India Vs. Dr. Vishnu Kant Srivastava
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2011
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3787/2011 With the consent of the parties, since a limited issue is involved, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 2. The respondent herein had filed OA No. 917/2010, which has been disposed of by the impugned order dated 6th August, 2010, inter alia, directing as under:- "4. We allow this application with direction to the respondents to convene Review DPC wherein ACR of the applicant for the year 2002-03 shall not be taken into consideration. Instead, the DPC would take into consideration the earlier ACR of the applicant for the year 2001-02 along with other relevant ACRs which were already under consideration, to re-assess the applicant for promotion to SAG. If otherwise found fit, the applicant shall be entitled to promotion to SAG and all consequential reliefs from the date his junior was promoted. Let this exercise be done as expeditiously as possible and preferably w...
Union of India and Others Vs. Shri Narendra Pal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2011
1. Department of posts has filed the present writ petition assailing the order dated 22nd October, 2010 passed in OA No. 1518/2010 and MA No. 858/2010, by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (Tribunal, for short). By the impugned order, the tribunal has allowed OA filed by the respondent Narendra Pal, quashing the penalty of recovery of Rs.2 lakhs for alleged loss of Rs.6 lakhs caused to the petitioner. The said amount was to be paid in 50 installments of Rs.4000/- each. The amount already recovered has been directed to be refunded without interest. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that loss caused has been proved and in the present case the respondent while working as a postal Assistant at the Saving Bank counter in the Aligarh Head Post office, had accepted 3 cheques of Rs.2 lakhs each, in violation of Rule 29(2) I and 35(6)(10) of the Saving Bank Volume I, wherein it is stipulated that maximum balance in a single account should not exce...
Subramani Gopalakrishnan Vs. Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ind ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2011
1. Keeping in view the similitude pertaining to the legal controversy in both the appeals, despite the fact that there is a slight difference in the factual matrix, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts from LPA No.886/2010, which arises from the order passed in WP(C) No.2205/2010, shall be exposited for the purpose of adjudication. 2. The appellant, a chartered accountant and a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), was a partner of M/s Price Waterhouse (M/s PW), a firm of Chartered Accountants registered with ICAI. In the year 2000, the firm was appointed as the statutory auditors of M/s Satyam Computer Services Ltd. (SCSL). The statutory audits of SCSL for the years 2001 to March, 2007 were conducted and the reports were signed by Mr. Subramani Gopalkrishnan, the appellant in LPA No.885/2010 [the petitioner in WP(C) No.5352/2010]. The statutory audit for the quarter...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Radhey Shyam Bansal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2011
1. In this batch of appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity the Act') preferred by the revenue. ITA No.582/2008, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Radhey Shyam Bansal has been treated as the lead case. It is stated that the relevant facts in all appeals are identical/similar, though details and particulars may be different. Four questions have been set out as substantial questions of law, but in the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the revenue have stated that the real questions that emerge for consideration are as follows: A. Whether the Assessing Officer is bound to record satisfaction within the meaning of Section 158BD of the Act, during the process of Assessment of the person searched under Section 158BC of the Act? B. Whether satisfaction as contemplated in Section 158BD of the Act has been duly recorded regard being had to be letter dated 15.7.2003 or in the assessment order, wherein undisclosed income of the respondent-assessee ...
K.R. Manglam World School and anr Vs. Ram Babu and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2011
1. The writ petition impugns the order dated 2 nd April, 2011 of the Industrial Adjudicator in two industrial disputes still pending before him, dismissing the application of the petitioners for recasting of the issues framed. It is the contention of the petitioners that the Industrial Adjudicator while framing the issues had wrongly placed the onus on the petitioners employers while the same should have been on the respondent workmen. It is contended that it is for the respondent workmen to prove whether they had worked for a period of more than 240 days with the petitioners or not. 2. The writ petitions impugning such interim orders of the Industrial Adjudicator are ordinarily not entertainable and the challenge if any to such orders is to be made along with the final award if any against the party. Reference may be made to M/s Glaxo Smithkline Consumer v. Presiding Officer Labour (2010) IV LLJ 739 Del., D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration (1983) 4 SCC 293, Shops and Commercial W...
Bindya Agarwal Vs. Registrar of Co-operative Societies and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2011
This is a case where the petitioner has been seeking to get allotment of a flat, now, for nearly quarter of a century. Petitioner became a member of the respondent No.2 Society on 03.04.1984 and deposited the share money. The society was allotted land at Patparganj, which is now known as Jagriti Enclave. There were, however, disputes about the enrolment of members, which gave rise to various legal proceedings. It is a case of the petitioner that due to disputes amongst the members of the society a petition was filed under Section 60 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 by some members, against the other 102 members of the Society, where the petitioner was one of the respondents. The dispute related to the unauthorized enrolment of waitlisted members which included the petitioner. The arbitrator, however, dismissed the claim on 01.08.1991 on the ground that it was not maintainable. A Revision Petition filed against this order also met the same fate by virtue of its dismissal on...
Gagan Deep Singh Sawhney Vs. U.P. State Industrial Development Corpora ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2011
ORDER % 30.05.2011 SANJIV KHANNA, J. CM Nos. 10908-10909/2011 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. LPA NO. 513/2011 & CM No. 10907/2011 (delay) This intra court appeal directed against the order dated 11th March, 2011, is barred by 16 days. However, we are not issuing notice on the application for delay in view of the fact that the learned counsel for the appellant has stated that he would file a writ petition before the appropriate High Court having jurisdiction on the subject matter. We accept the said submission. 2. It may be noticed that the appellant had applied for a residential plot in Sector C-9, Tronica City, Ghaziabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The said application was made to Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, which has it's registered office at Kanpur and the project office at Ghaziabad (U.P.). Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited is respondent No. 1 to the present appeal and is located in the St...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »