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.
Master Mohd.Abdullah Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2011
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to direct the respondents to hold a fresh draw for admission to the pre-school class for the academic session 2011-12 in the respondent No.3-school. 2. The short controversy involved in the present writ petition is as to whether the petitioner child who belongs to the weaker section of the society (EWS) is entitled to seek admission at the entry level class i.e. pre school in terms of the notification dated 7.1.2011 issued by the GNCT of Delhi even if the petitioner child was above the age of four years on the cutoff date. 3. Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Deepali Gupta submitted that no upper limit has been fixed under the Delhi School Education Act and in case the petitioner is not considered then the child may remain without education as the petitioner belongs to a very poor family but the parents of the petitioner want to educate their child. Counsel further submitted that the...
Vishal Yadav Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Police
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2011
1. The petitioner, belonging to the Other Backward Caste (OBC) category had in response to the Public Notice Inviting Application for Recruitment of Constables (Executive Male) in Police applied and had taken the written examination and the interview and his name was shortlisted and he was directed to report for medical examination. It is the case of the petitioner that his name however did not figure in the name of selected candidates. The petitioner claims that he has cleared the physical endurance test and no reason, if any, for his medical unfitness has been disclosed. Averring irregularity in the recruitment process, the present writ petition has been filed calling for the records of recruitment and seeking mandamus directing the respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the list of selected candidates.2. Notice of the petition was issued. No counter affidavit has been filed inspite of opportunities. However, the counsel for the respondent states that the counter affidav...
Sanjay Chandra and ors. Vs. C.B.i.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2011
1. Accused Sanjay Chandra, Vinod Goenka, Gautam Doshi, Hari Nair and Surendra Pipara vide above referred applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are seeking bail in case FIR No.RC-DAI-2009-A-0045 P.S. ACB, CBI New Delhi under Section 420, 468, 471 IPC and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) P.C. Act. 2. Briefly stated, allegations in the charge sheet are that during May 2007-2008, the petitioners and public servants, namely, A.Raja, Minister of Communications and Information Technology, his P.S. R.K. Chandolia and the then Telecom Secretary Siddhartha Behura entered into a criminal conspiracy to cause undue advantage to the petitioners or their companies, namely, Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd. and Unitech Group of Companies and caused corresponding loss to the State exchequer by abuse of their official position. 3. Learned Sh. Ram Jethmalani and learned Sh. K.T.S.Tulsi, Sr. Advocates appearing for the accused Sanjay Chandra submitted that he has been unfairly roped in as an accused on unsubstantia...
Yash Pal Vs. the Director General Council of Scientific and Industrial ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2011
1. These two writ petitions have been filed by Yash Pal impugning two different orders dated 6th May, 2004 and 9th September, 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (tribunal, for short). The subject matter of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10395/2004 is also made subject matter of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 23790/2005, though in the latter additional grounds and subsequent cause of action is raised and is the subject matter. 2. The petitioner had appeared in person and was heard. Ms. Maninder Acharya was appointed as an Amicus Curiae and was also heard. 3. The petitioner joined National Physical Laboratory, a constituent unit of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, the respondent, as a Fine Mechanic with effect from 18th May, 1979. The said post is in Group I category. The other categories being Group II, Group III and Group IV in the ascending order. 4. The respondent introduced a New Recruitment and Assessment Scheme (NRAS, for short), whi...
Nand Kishore Garg Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2011
1. The petitioners, as pro-bono publico, have preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short the Commission), the respondent No.2 herein, to issue the tariff order approved by it on 28th/29th April, 2010 and pass such other order/orders as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. It is profitable to note here that various assertions have been made with regard to the issues relating to the finalization of the tariff by the Commission under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for brevity 2003 Act), the illegality committed by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) in asking the Commission not to issue the tariff and further how the consumers have been affected by the non-issuance of the tariff order. In the course of the pendency of the writ petition, there was impleadment of certain respondents, namely, BSE...
Santosh Kumar Vs. Uoi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2011
1. At the instance of the Container Corporation of India Employees Union (which has not been made a party to the present petition), the following reference came to be made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: "Whether the action of the management of Container Corporation of India Ltd., Ashoka Road, New Delhi is not giving to its employees any incentives for family planning for promoting small family norms of the Govt. is justified? If not to what relief and benefits the employees are entitled to?" 2. While the said reference was pending and the matter was listed next before the Industrial Adjudicator on 16th March, 2006 for cross examination of the workmen, an application dated 3 rd January, 2006 came to be filed before the Industrial Adjudicator on behalf of the Union aforesaid. In the said application it was inter alia stated that the Union during the pendency of the proceedings before the Industrial Adjudicator had come to know that a Scheme viz. "Policy on Grant o...
Bijoy Ghosh Vs. Uoi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2011
1. The petitioner, a Deputy Commandant with the Central Reserve Police Force was issued a Memorandum of charge dated 26.11.1999, listing one article of charge as under:- "ARTICLE-I Shri Bijoy Ghosh, DC while posted in 8 Bn. CRPF and functioning at Dett Hqr. Jagiroad (Assam) during 1998 was detailed to collect No.913183072 CT Raj Pal and CT Yogendra Singh of 8 Bn, CRPF on 22/08/98 from BH-III, CRPF, Guwahati committed an act of misconduct in that he failed to react effectively and promptly as such both the above CTs deserted on 22/08/98 from BH-III. Thus, said Shri Bijoy Ghosh, DC failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and thereby violated the provisions contained in Rule 3(1)(II) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964." 2. The backdrop facts of the case are that on 4.8.1998, 4 constables of CRPF which included Ct.Raj Pal and Ct.Yogender Singh assaulted the Coy Commander and ransacked the police station Morigaon, Assam. Taking cognizance of the incident the 4 constables were suspended. Pert...
Sh. Gurdeep Singh Vs. President, Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Commi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2011
1. The matter has been listed as per office note dated 13th May, 2011. 2. The writ petition impugns the order dated 13th December, 2001 of the respondent terminating the services of the petitioner. The writ petition has been preferred after more than 10 years of the order impugned. In fact, the petitioner immediately after the order, on 14th December, 2001 itself instituted a suit for permanent injunction in the Court of the Civil Judge, Delhi to restrain the respondent from so terminating his services. The petitioner however claims to have withdrawn the said suit on 22nd February, 2002. The petitioner thereafter averring that the order of his termination was in violation of the interim order for maintenance of status quo in a writ petition/writ appeal relating to disputes as to election to the office bearers of the respondent, filed Cont.Case(C) No.11/2002. The said contempt petition was finally dismissed vide order dated 30 th August, 2010. However that order records that the counsel...
O.P.Arora Vs. Syndicate Bank and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2011
1. Petitioner O.P.Arora and his son Vishal Arora constituted a partnership under the name and style V.S.A.Ledermode. The partnership firm availed various credit facilities from Syndicate Bank. The account became sticky and the bank filed a recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal claiming a sum of `4,19,80,000/- as on 9.1.1998 when the claim was filed. 2. Vishal Arora offered a settlement which was accepted by the bank and as per the OTS dated 31.3.2000 the bank agreed to receive `2.45 crores in full and final settlement of its dues. Parties agreed to the amount being repaid with agreed rate of interest in installments. The settlement was not honoured. 3. Vishal Arora entered into another settlement with the bank agreeing to repay `2.84 crores in installments together with interest at the agreed rate and in terms of the settlement the original application filed by the bank came to be disposed of with a consent decree in sum of `2.84 crores to be paid to the bank in instal...
M/S. Koshika Telecom Ltd Vs. Ms. Shalini Soni
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2011
1. The Official Liquidator had filed this contempt petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 read with Order XXXIX Rule 2A and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for holding one Assistant General Manager(Law) of the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd.(IFCI) guilty of committing contempt of this Court and punishing her for deliberately not complying with the order dated 08/10/2009 passed by this Court in Company Petition No.75/2002. 2. The undisputed facts leading to the initiation of present contempt proceedings may first all be noticed. Company Petition no. 75/2002 was filed by Lord Krishna Bank for the winding up of one Company by the name of M/s Koshika Telecom Ltd. and in that petition this Company was ordered to be wound up vide order dated 02/08/2005 and the Official Liquidator attached to this Court was asked to take charge of all the assets of the said Company. Thereafter, in his status report dated 6th October,2009 it was pointed out...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »