Delhi Court June 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.
Girraj Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 38 days. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find sufficient ground exists for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal and accordingly the same stands condoned. The application is disposed of. LPA No. 523/2011 Heard Mr. Kaushal Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sarat Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. Calling in question the legal propriety of the order dated 21st February, 2011 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6759/2001, the present intra-Court appeal has been filed. In the writ petition, the appellant had prayed for following reliefs: "a) issue an appropriate writ order or direction to respondent nos. 1 and 2 directing them to immediately release payment of concession of petitioners withheld by them which concession is otherwise payable to the petitioner under the scheme. b) Issue an appropriate writ/order or direction quashing the order dated 28.9.2001 issued by the r...
Asi (M) Kamlesh Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. Counter affidavit has not been filed, but learned counsel for the respondents places reliance on clause 2 of para 9.15 of the Establishment Manual of CRPF to negate the claim predicated by the petitioner. 2. Admittedly, on being selected, after completing the mandatory course, vide a Signal dated 13.04.2010 the petitioner was promoted from the post of ASI to SI(M) pertaining to the vacancy year 2010-2011. On promotion, the petitioner was allotted RTC-II AVADI vide Signal dated 23.04.2010. 3. Citing compelling domestic circumstances on account of the wife of the petitioner being unwell and small children being required to be looked after, petitioner made a request under Rule 17.12 of the Establishment Manual praying that either his posting order, on promotion, be cancelled or in the alternatively, the promotion be kept in abeyance and alternative that petitioner was willing to forgo his promotion for a period of one year or till a vacancy arises. 4. It is apparent that the petitioner...
Mahipal Singh and ors. Vs. Ministry of Tourism
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. The common issue in all these petitions concerns the interpretation of certain clauses of the revised scheme of "Incentive to Accommodation Infrastructure" announced by a notification dated 7th December 2007 of the Department of Tourism (DOT), Government of India. 2. The background to the above scheme is that the DOT had been issuing notifications in 2003 and 2004 to encourage growth of Budget Hotel Accommodation for promotion of tourism in the country. In supersession of those notifications, the DOT issued on 30th September 2004 a notification announcing the scheme of "Incentive to Accommodation Infrastructure". The objective of the scheme was to provide incentives to newly approved hotel projects in 1 to 3 Star and Heritage (Basic) categories in the country except the four metropolitan cities of Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai. The said scheme for grant of capital subsidy was to be effective for the whole 10th Five Year Plan from 1st April 2002 to 31st March 2007. The scheme wo...
D.B. Samuel Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (Cbi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. The captioned appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Code) against the judgment dated 23.08.2002 and sentence dated 24.08.2002 passed by Sh. R.K. Gauba, Spl. Judge, CBI, Delhi. The appellant, who is the accused has been found guilty and convicted in respect of offences attributed to him under Sections 409, 466, 471, 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and Section 5(2) read with Sections 5(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as P.C. Act). The accused has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of four years and the fine of Rs 2000 on each count. The sentences are to run concurrently. In the event of default in payment of fine on any of the counts the accused is required to undergo a further RI of three months. 2. The brief facts in the background of which the present appeal arises are as follows: The accused was work...
M/S. Chl Ltd. Vs. M/S. Alitalia Airlines and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.3918606.37. The plaintiff company is running a Hotel named "Crowne Plaza Hotel" at New Friends Colony, New Delhi. It is alleged that the defendant approached the plaintiff in the year 2006 for providing accommodation along with other services to its Passenger Crew and Cargo Crew. An agreement was executed between the parties on 18.09.2006. The agreement was valid from the period from 01.10.2006 to 30.09.2008. Under the agreement, the plaintiff bank was required to set aside 20 to 31 rooms throughout the year, 10/11 rooms per day for "Passenger Crew" checking-in and 10/11 rooms per day for "Passenger Crew" late checking- out(overlap) and 9 rooms for Cargo Crew back to back for the year. The room rent was fixed at Rs.7.000 per double room (single use) plus taxes for the period 01.10.2006 to 30.09.2007. The rate for the period from 01.10.2007 to 30.09.2008 was to be mutually agreed not later than 30.06.2007 and the maximum increase could have been 15%....
Kishan Freight Forwarders Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. The common issue in these eight petitions concerns the interpretation of Clause (E) in the Comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy (CPLP) of the Indian Railways for leasing of parcel space in the brake vans (SLRs) by passenger-carrying trains and leasing of Parcel Vans (VP/VPH/VPU) on round trip basis which was announced by the Railway Board on 28th March 2006 by the Freight Marketing Circular No. 12 of 2006 and became effective on 1st April 2006. Relevant Clause of the CPLP and the Lease Agreement 2. Clause (E) of the CPLP provided for the extension of the lease in case of long term lease of three years. The extension could be for a period of two years at a lease rate 25% more than the lump sum leased freight rate. Clause (E) of the CPLP reads as under: "Clause (E): Extension of lease 1. Extension of lease is permissible only in case of long term lease of three years. 2. In case of long terms lease, on expiry of the contractual period, the same can be extended only once, by two more ye...
Chiranji Lal and ors. Vs. Uoi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. Vide impugned decisions the Reference Court has held that the appellants are not entitled to any enhancement of the compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. 2. The appeals relate to lands in village Ghewra, which were the subject matter of acquisition pursuant to a notification dated 6.2.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. 3. In the decision dated 19.12.2008, deciding a batch of Land Acquisition Appeals, lead matter being LA.APP.No.193/2006 Pratap Singh (Thru LRs) vs. UOI & Ors., pertaining to lands in the revenue estate of village Tikri Kalan and village Ghewra; holding that the 2 lands were of equivalent nature, and I note that the 2 lands are situated on the either side of a railway line, the Division Bench assessed the market value of the land in village Tikri Kalan, as of 16.11.1995 @`2,15,160/- per bigha for Block-A land and pertaining to a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 11.6.1996, had dete...
Ajay Pal and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. Briefly, the prosecution case is that on 26th March, 2005, the day of Holi, an information was received at Police Station Mayur Vihar vide DD No.29B Ex.PW 7/A at about 3:40 PM from someone that his friend has been stabbed with knife and police be sent. PW7 Sub Inspector Kishan Chand along with Constable Rajender reached at E-30/64, Trilok Puri and found a Motor Cycle make Hero Honda, bearing number DL7S AC 8401 on the spot. They came to know that the injured has been removed to LBS Hospital by his friend in a rickshaw. PW7 SI Kishan Chand went to LBS Hospital leaving behind constable Rajender at the spot. The MLC of PW7 Rakesh the injured was collected from LBS Hospital. The injured had been referred to GTB Hospital. PW7 met his friends Deepak and Bharat Mal. In his statement Ex. PW1/A, Deepak stated that he was resident of E30/150, Trilok Puri, Delhi and at about 12:30 PM the injured PW3 came to his house to play Holi, in the meantime their other friend PW2 Bharat Lal also came and...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Kanwar Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. The petition impugns the order dated 5th February, 2009 and the award dated 1st April, 2010 of the Industrial Adjudicator deciding the following reference:- "Whether the removal of Sh. Kanwar Lal from services, is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?" by directing the petitioner DTC to reinstate the respondent workman without any back wages but with Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses. 2. The respondent workman was employed with the petitioner DTC as a conductor. The route on which he was posted was raided on 20 th March, 1995 and he was charged with having on board a woman passenger having a ticket punched upward when the trip was downward and being in possession of excess cash of Rs.108.95p. Departmental inquiry held found the respondent workman guilty and the punishment of removal from service was meted out to him. 3. Upon dispute being raised by the respondent workman, the Industrial Adjudicator fi...
Dr. Anita Babbar Vs. Sh. O.P. Babbar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2011
1. By way of this application under Section 151of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the respondent No.1 prays for dismissal of the petition as not maintainable in view of non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 81 and 83 of the Act. 2. It is stated in the application that the petitioner has failed to supply a complete set of papers alongwith the petition to the respondent No.1. It is further stated that the counsel for the respondent No.1 appeared before the Court on 20.05.2009 and requested the counsel for the petitioner to supply the complete set to enable him to file reply to the petition. The counsel for the petitioner held out an assurance that the complete set would be supplied the same day. However, a set of the petition alongwith the annexures was supplied to the counsel for the respondent No.1 on 6.7.2009, but even this copy was not complete and not a true copy of the peti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »