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.
Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2011
1. On 14th March, 2011, the first date of hearing, the following order was passed:- "WP (C) No. 1651/2011 Heard Mr.Sudhir Chandra, learned senior counsel along with Mr.Manish Bishnoi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Atul Nanda, learned senior counsel along with Mr.Neeraj Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondents. Mr.Atul Nanda, learned senior counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the controversy that has been sought to be agitated in this writ petition is substantially the issue before the Apex Court and the petitioner No.1 is a party to the same. For the aforesaid purpose, he has referred to paragraph 6 of the application for stay. On perusal of the paragraph 6, it appears that the petitioner No.1 is a party to a matter pending before the Apex Court. In view of the aforesaid, we would like learned counsel for the petitioners to file a copy of the petition filed before the Apex Court so that this Court can appropriately be guided. Call on 22nd March, 2011." 2....
Reena Yadav and Others Vs. Satish Kumar Yadav
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2011
1 This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 06.05.2009 which ha s endorsed the finding of the trial Judge dated 15.09.2004 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Reena Yadav seeking a decree of declaration (to the effect that Will dated 10.02.1992 executed by late Sh. Raghunath Singh Yadav is a forged and fabricated document and as a consequence the RSA No.110/2009 Page 1 of 5 consequential relief that no benefit be taken by defendant No. 1 qua the said Will) had been dismissed. 2 The plaintiff is the daughter of deceased Raghunath Singh Yadav whose Will dated 10.02.1992 is under question. The defendant Satish Kumar Yadav is her brother; he had allegedly forged the Will dated 10.02.1992 in his favour on the basis of which he had got a piece of land in Village Nangal, District Rewari mutated in his favour; another plot of land at Sri Nagar, Shakur Basti had also been mutated in his favour on the basis of the said forged Will; this fact came to the light only on 06.03.2001 ...
Event and Entertainment Management Association Vs. Union of India and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2011
25.05.2011 Introduction 1. The prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the Union of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development (HRD) to frame appropriate and objective standards towards the determination and levying of royalties of various copyrighted works administered by Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), Respondent No. 3, and the Indian Performing Right Society Limited (IPRSL), Respondent No. 4, or any other society that may be so created by it, and the mode of enforcing and administering such royalties when so fixed. A further direction is for investigation of the books of account of PPL and IPRSL to ascertain whether they have paid their dues to the owners/authors of copyrights. Case of the Petitioner 2. The Petitioner, Event and Entertainment Management Association (EEMA), is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It comprises of members from all over India who are engaged in the business of organizing events, functions and entertainm...
Smt. Shashi Bala Vs. Shri Rakesh Kumar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2011
1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 13.08.2008, which has reversed the finding of the Trial Court Judge dated 31.5.2007. Vide decree and judgment dated 31.5.2007, suit filed by Rakesh Kumar seeking possession of the suit property (Municipal No.559-560, Jain Mandir Gali, Chhota Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi) had been dismissed; the impugned judgment had reversed this finding; suit of the plaintiff was decreed.2. The plaintiffs Rakesh Kumar and Mukesh Kumar are the sons of Madan Mohan; the defendant Shashi Bala is the wife of Ashok, predeceased son of Madan Mohan. The case of the plaintiff was bordered on the Will of their father Madan Mohan dated 4.7.1997 (Ex.PW3/1); contention was that Madan Mohan had bequeathed the aforenoted suit property to him by virtue of a Will dated 4.7.1997. The defence of the defendant all along was that this suit property is an ancestral property and it could not have been bequeathed by Madan Mohan; the defendant being the daughter in law of Ma...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Shiv Lal and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2011
1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2009 which has reversed the finding of the trial Judge dated 23.04.2009. Vide judgment and decree dated 23.04.2009, the suit filed by the plaintiff Shiv Lal seeking recovery in the sum of `2,65,470/- against the defendant/Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) had been dismissed. The impugned judgment had reversed this finding; suit had been decreed. 2. The plaintiff claimed himself to be the owner of land measuring 3 bigha 2 biswa Khasra No.855/1784, Village Naraina, New Delhi. The defendants are in unauthorized occupation in the suit land from numerous years and they have constructed an office there. The defendant has failed to vacate the land despite repeated requests. Earlier suit filed by the plaintiff seeking damages had been decreed upto the period from 03.06.1984. Present suit for recovery of damages for three years prior to filing of the present suit had accordingly been filed. 3. In the written statement the defenc...
Dharam Raj Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2011
1. The writ petition impugns the award dated 17 th August, 2006 of the Industrial Adjudicator holding the removal of the petitioner workman from the services of the respondent DTC to be legal and justified and the petitioner workman not entitled to any relief. The writ petition has been preferred after nearly five years of the award. The workman who is aggrieved from the award is required to act diligently and not expected to allow such long time to lapse. There is absolutely no explanation whatsoever for such long delay. On enquiry, the counsel for the petitioner workman states that the delay was on account of "family circumstances". Again, no particulars whatsoever have been given. 2. Even otherwise, I find that the petitioner is not serious in the challenge now made also; except for the award and the order dated 18th May, 2006 of the Industrial Adjudicator holding the inquiry held preceding the termination to be valid and proper, nothing else has been filed. The counsel for the peti...
Yudhvir Singh Vs. Land Acquisition Collector
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-2011
1. The petitioner seeks to raise a legal plea that he is entitled to maintain an application for enhanced compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the said Act for short) even though filed admittedly beyond three (3) months of the date of the award on the ground that it was filed within three months of the date of the knowledge of the award. In substance the plea is that it is the date of knowledge of the petitioner which is material for purposes of filing an application under Section 28-A of the said Act to claim parity in respect of compensation qua persons who had sought and obtained enhanced compensation. 2. The factual matrix is limited. The petitioner was owner of the land in question, which was situated in Village Dhaka. The land was sought to be acquired by issuance of a notification u/Section 4 of the said Act on 13.11.1959, which was followed by a declaration dated 22.11.1962 issued under Section 6 of the said Act. An award no.1557, in this regard, w...
Sh. Manohar Lal Vs. Prem Nath Gera
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-2011
1. The challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is to the impugned judgment dated 26.4.2011 of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal which has directed eviction of the appellants/tenants under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the Act), which is a provision for eviction for non-payment of rent. An order for eviction is passed under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act, if the tenant fails to comply with the order of deposit of rent under Section 15(1) of the Act. In a petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act eviction is not ordered and benefit is given of the provision of Section 14(2) of the Act by denying the right of eviction to the landlord only if the tenant complies with the order to deposit the rent under Section 15(1) of the Act. 2. The facts of the case are that an order was in fact passed under Section 15(1) of the Act on 24.07.2002. As per this order dated 24.7.2002, the arrears were to be paid and future rent ...
J K College of Nursing and Paramedicals Vs. Uoi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-2011
1. The petition impugns the order dated 10 th September, 2010 of the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, finding the petitioner to be employing more than 20 employees and thus, though covered by the provisions of the Act but in non-compliance thereof. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that it has never employed even 20 persons and the EPF Authority had wrongly found the petitioner to have engaged 37 persons and having not extended the benefit of the Act to the said employees. 3. The Appellate Tribunal, relying upon Saraswati Construction Company v. Central Board of Trustees 171 (2010) DLT 3, held that if any establishment or employer claims to be not covered under the said Act, then it is for the employer to place sufficient cogent and convincing material before the designated authority in an enquiry under Section 7A ...
Deva Nand Shah Vs. M/S A.V.i. Plast
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-2011
1. The writ petition impugns the award dated 17 th December, 2007 of the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference: "Whether the services of Sh. Deva Nand Shah S/o Sh. Damodar Shah have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief along with consequential benefits in terms of existing laws/Govt. Notifications and to what other relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?" and though holding the termination of services of the petitioner workman by the respondent employer to be illegal for the reason of being in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes (I.D.) Act, 1947 but granting relief only of compensation of `40,000/- to the petitioner workman. 2. The grievance of the petitioner workman in the writ petition is that upon the termination having been found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages ought to have been granted. The counsel for the pet...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »