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.
M/S Chatterjee Cleaning Arts Services Pvt. Ltd Vs. Assistant Provident ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. The petition impugns the order dated 3rd March, 2011 of the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi impleaded as respondent no.2. The said Tribunal is not required to be impleaded as a party and is deleted from the memo of parties. An endorsement to the said effect be made by the Court Master today itself. 2. The first contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal has not heard the petitioner and refused the adjournments sought by the petitioner. 3. No merit is found in the said contention. The petitioner has no right to adjournment and if chooses, when the appeal comes up for hearing, to seek adjournment, does so at its own risk and no error is found in the refusal of adjournment and the Tribunal proceeding to reserve the order. The contention that because the appeal had come up after five years, adjournment should have been granted, cannot be accepted. 3.1 The appeal was preferred against the order dated 30th August, 2006 of the respondent no.1 ...
Savita Devi Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. This is the second round of litigation and unfortunately as reflected in the order dated 7.1.2011, when WP(C) No.7518/2008 filed by the petitioner was disposed of, the petitioner was found knocking at the wrong door and obviously the door would not open. 2. Husband of the petitioner was employed as a Pioneer and earned promotion as a Painter under General Road Engineering Force (GREF). 3. Thinking that Army Pension Rules 1982 would govern the entitlement of the petitioner for family pension, WP(C) No.7518/2008 was filed. The department never told this Court that as per the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court reported as AIR 1983 SC 658K.Biswan & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors., GREF employees were civilian employees, notwithstanding they being subjected to the discipline of the Armed Forces and thus for service benefits, the applicable service rules pertaining to civilian employees would hold the field. 4. WP(C) No.7518/2008 was disposed of directing the GREF Authoriti...
Chandni Sharma Vs. Gopal Dutt Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. The present revision petition is filed by the petitioner, through her mother who is her natural guardian, under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for revising the order dated 13.02.2009, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate directing the respondent herein, father of the petitioner, to pay her a sum of `1,000/- p.m. from 24.9.2001 to 31.3.2005 and a sum of `1,500/- p.m. from 1.4.2005 to 22.8.2007, as maintenance. 2. The brief relevant facts of this case are that the petitioner's mother had alleged that she had got married to the respondent on 3.12.1988, and from this union, the petitioner was born 22.8.1989. However, the fact of the marriage was denied by the respondent, who subsequently got married to another lady. The respondent further denied being the father of the petitioner. Since the petitioner was a minor, hence a petition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.PC was filed on her behalf by her mother and natural guardian, Ms. G.A. ...
Sandip Kumar Roy Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. The petitioner, Sandeep Kumar Roy, has assailed order dated 23rd April, 2010 passed in OA No. 1259/2010 and order dated 7th July, 2010 passed in RA No. 159/2010, by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (tribunal, for short). 2. By order dated 23rd April, 2010, learned Tribunal held that the Original Application filed by the petitioner was time barred and the application for condonation of delay deserves to be dismissed. In these circumstances, the merits were not examined. R.A. No. 159/2010 was dismissed vide order dated 7th July, 2010 on the ground that the first order was passed on the basis of pleadings made in the Original Application and there was no occasion for review on the basis of new material. 3. The petitioner was selected as Geologist (Junior), Group 'A', junior scale post in the Geological Survey of India. The said examination was conducted by Union Public Services Commission and the petitioner was 25th in the order of merits as per the list ...
T. Murugan and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. In these three appeals, a common judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 10.07.1997 passed in Sessions Case No.27/1996 has been challenged. 2. By the impugned judgment, all the appellants (hereafter referred to by their names, i.e., Murugan, Veeran and Karuppan) were sentenced to undergo 7 years imprisonment for conspiracy to commit theft with fine and also undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section-302, IPC. All the appellants were originally charged with committing offences under Section-120B/380/302/34, IPC. 3. The prosecution's case was that one N.R. Nagaratanam, a widower was living alone in Janak Puri, in Flat No.B-38/91-C, on the second floor. He had two sons, PW-7 & PW-8 who were living outside Delhi. PW-7 was working in Bhopal and PW-8, in Bombay. Nagratnam (hereafter referred to as "the deceased") had a tenant Sri Niwasan (PW-10); he lived there with his brother. It is further alleged that on 27.07.1993, PW-10 went down...
Sudershan Singh Vs. Ravinder Uppal and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. This petition is directed against the order dated 05.07.2010, passed by the Claims Tribunal, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, allowing the application filed by the respondent No.1 herein under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the petition. 2. The short question which arises for decision in the present petition is as to whether an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-Section (1) of Section 165 may be made by the father of the person injured without being duly authorized in writing. 3. The brief facts relevant for the decision of the petition are that a claim petition was filed on 12.07.2007 under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation against the petitioner and the respondents No.2 and 3 on the ground that on 17.03.2007, when the respondent No.1 was on his way to Karol Bagh from his residence, the offending vehicle being driven in a rash and negligent manner by t...
Anoop Kumar Konkde Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-2011
1. This is an Appeal against the Judgment dated 20.01.2011 and Order on sentence dated 21.01.2011 whereby the Appellant was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 394 Indian Penal Code (IPC). For the offence punishable under Section 394 IPC, the Appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of ` 4,000/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months whereas for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the Appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ` 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months. and 2. The Appellant was employed as a driver by PW-1 Naresh Kumar Mittal on 24.12.2007 on the recommendation of PW-3 Nand Kishore who was working as a Security Supervisor at Gangotri Enclave. PW-1 Naresh Kumar Mittal and his wife Meera Mittal were residing at C-28 Gangotri En...
Gajanand Mittal Vs. Ashok Kumar (Deceased)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2011
1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2009 which has reversed the findings of the trial Judge dated 19.03.2005. Vide judgment and decree dated 19.03.2005, the suit filed by the plaintiff Ashok Kumar seeking recovery of `1,35,000/- qua the suit property (i.e.plot No.36, measuring 80 square yards in Khasra No. 25/11, Shiv Ram Park Extension forming part of village Kamruddin Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi had been dismissed. The impugned judgment had reversed this finding; appeal filed by the plaintiff had been accepted; the Court had noted that the plaintiff had become the owner of the suit property vide valid documents of title, general power of attorney, Will, affidavit dated 11.06.1997; the defendant was a mere licensee; he was liable to be ejected; damages/mesne profits @ `2,000/- per month had also been awarded in his favour. 2 The plaintiff claimed himself to be the owner of the suit property. He had inducted the defendant as a tenant at monthly rent of `5,000/-; t...
Delhi Jal Board Vs. Dr. Anil Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2011
1 This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2008 which has modified the finding of the trial Judge dated 03.07.2006. Vide judgment and decree dated 03.07.2006, the suit of the plaintiff had been dismissed on the applicability of Section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; the court was of the view that the suit (which was a suit seeking his salary dues on the doctrine of equal pay for equal work) had been dismissed; the trial Judge had however returned a finding that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work is attracted; however in view of the provisions of Section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act, suit is not maintainable in the present form. The impugned judgment had modified this finding. It was held that the suit is maintainable; further the plaintiff is entitled to his dues of `1,87,000/-. 2 The plaintiff was appointed as a medical officer under the Jal Board. His initial appointment was for a period of three month vide appointment letter dated 16.09.1998...
Friends of Rajouri Garden Environment (Regd.) Vs. M.C.D. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2011
1. This Public Interest Litigation-writ petition was filed in the year 2009, seeking demolition of unauthorised construction on Major Sudesh Kumar Road, Ring Road and Maharishi Dayanand Marg, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. It is also alleged that there has been a deviation/excess coverage resulting in unauthorised construction. Violation of the terms of the lease and misuse is also alleged. 2. On 22nd July, 2009, learned counsel for the MCD had stated that action would be taken against all unauthorized constructions and the same would be demolished within three months. A Survey carried out by the MCD was directed to be filed in the Court. 3. In the next order dated 29th July, 2009, it is recorded that respondent MCD should take action against the properties mentioned in the annexure to the status report as per the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 within a period of four months. An undertaking was given to the same effect before the Court and was accepted. 4. By order dated 2nd Decembe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »