Delhi Court July 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.
Devi Lal and anr. Vs. C.R.P.F. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2011
1. Petitioners, husband and wife, have prayed that the transfer order dated 9.7.1997 transferring both of them to Guwahati be quashed. 2. Reason why they sought order to be quashed was that their minor daughters were in mid-term of the school and joining at Guwahati would affect their studies. It was further averred that their third daughter was undergoing treatment at Safdarjung Hospital. 3. As per the respondents the children of the petitioners could be accommodated at the school at Guwahati and as regards medical treatment of third daughter, facilities for the same were available at the base Hospital at Guwahati. 4. We note that the petitioners were not granted any interim relief and thus were required to comply with the mandate of the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents informs us that the petitioners defied the transfer orders and notwithstanding no stay being granted to them they did not report for duty at Guwahati, and thus taking disciplinary action against t...
Balbir Singh Vs. Ram Pal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2011
1. Proceeding departmentally and issuing a charge sheet upon the petitioner it was alleged that while on 'A' shift duty at Gate No.10 on 13.2.1995, petitioner was found to be in possession of an excess amount. Second charge was of accepting illegal gratification while on duty; as per charge No.1. 2. Charge sheet dated 22.3.1995, was replied to by the petitioner, he denied the charges. 3. Inquiry officer was appointed. 4. Inquiry officer submitted a report holding both the charges to be proved. Petitioner was supplied the findings of the inquiry officer for his response, which he did, and considering the response the Disciplinary Authority concurred with the findings of the inquiry officer and awarded the penalty of dismissal from service. Statutory appeal filed has been rejected. 5. Suffice would it be to note that the evidence which emerges is the declaration of the petitioner when he was reported to duty by making a GD entry with respect to cash he was carrying and proof of the fact ...
A.N. Kasireddi Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2011
1. None for the respondents in spite of being passed over once. 2. As recorded in the order dated 18.3.2011, learned counsel for the respondents who appeared on advance copy being served informed the Court that "FOLLOWERS", a Group D post, were being re-mustered as Constables, a Group C post. This was to further the career prospects of "FOLLOWERS". It was informed that the decision had been taken to upgrade the "FOLLOWERS" to Group C by re-designating them as „Constables. 3. A signal dated 22.1.2010 was shown to us as per which, in harmony with the decision taken, Recruitment Rules being required to be amended were being sent for approval to MHA. It was informed to us that as and when the Recruitment Rules would be amended needful would be done. 4. We note that as per signal dated 22.1.2010, amended Recruitment Rules were already sent to MHA. 5. We are constraint to observe that for over 1 year and 6 months MHA has not bothered to grant approval or in the alternative send such am...
Anu Vs. Suresh Verma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2011
1. This is an application by defendant No.2 for condonation of delay in filing written statement. The written statement has been filed after thirty days though much before expiry of ninety days. As agreed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the delay in filing written statement is condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of. IA 10693/2011 (O.7 R.11 CPC filed by D-1 & D-2) 1. This application has been filed by defendants No.1 & 2 for rejection of plaint. 2. This is a suit for partition. The plaintiff and defendants are the children of late Shri Om Prakash Verma and Smt. Chandra Wati. The case of the plaintiff is that the properties detailed in Annexure-P1 were owned by her parents and devolved on the parties to the suit, on their death. It is further alleged that the defendants No.1 & 2 are living in one of the properties, i.e. X-2302, Raghubarpura, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, and portions of the suit property as well as the other properties have been rented out by defend...
Nirbhai Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2011
1. By this writ petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 22nd January, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (for short „the tribunal) in OA No. 418/2008, wherein the tribunal has declined to interfere with the order dated 8th March, 2007 whereby the order of termination of the applicants services initially passed by the competent authority on 12th January, 1999 under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 (for short „the 1965 Rules) was confirmed after the matter was remanded by this Court. 2. The facts that have been exposited are that the petitioner applied for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police for special recruitment in Moga (Punjab). He filled up an Application Form and thereafter the Attestation Form. He was medically examined and was selected for the pos...
Om Prakash Snehi Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2011
1. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 11.10.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 1715/2006, titled Shri Om Parkash Snehi vs. Union of India and Ors. declining the original application of the petitioner seeking quashing of orders dated 2.5.2005 and 11.07.2005 and declining the request of the petitioner for counting his ad hoc period of service for regular appointment. 2. On 10.09.2001, the Director Prosecution by order dated 19.09.2001 had circulated a tentative seniority list of officers appointed on regular basis to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor in the Directorate of Prosecution. The petitioner had contended that his name was shown junior to the officers promoted by order dated 22.08.1994 who were in fact junior to him despite the fact that he had already been appointed as Senior/Additional Public Prosecutor on 1.7.1994. 3. The Tribunal while considering the claim of the petitioner considered the pleas ...
Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. Rakesh Mehta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2011
1. Punjab & Sind Bank has filed the present intra court appeal to assail the decision dated 1st July, 2010, passed by the learned Single Judge allowing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2497-99/2004. 2. The said writ petition was filed by Mr. Rakesh Mehta, Mr. H.S. Tuteja and Mr. J.S. Bawa, respondents No. 1 to 3 herein, who had challenged the seniority list circulated under the cover of the letter dated 28th February, 2003, where the respondents 1 to 3 were shown at serial nos. 13, 14 and 12 respectively and Sukhbir Singh Bhatia, Daljit Singh Kochar, Gurpreet Singh, Nalin Kumar Hazarika, Ritu Malhotra and Balbir Singh, i.e. respondents No. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 herein, were shown as senior to them. Learned single Judge has quashed the said seniority list and held that the seniority list of Electronic Data Process (EDP, for short) officer cadre as on 31st March, 2001, circulated under the cover of letter dated 22nd December, 2001 was correct. Another direction given by the learned single J...
Mr. Ashraf Kamal Vs. Jamia Millia Islamia and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2011
1. The petitioner has approached this court by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek quashing of the notice dated 12.10.2010 and the note dated 12.10.2010 issued by the respondent no.3 whereby a complete ban was imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner has also sought directions to direct the respondents to forthwith forward his candidature for registration in Ph.D. Programme for Dalit and Minorities Studies. 2. Facts shorn of unnecessary details are that the petitioner is a student of the respondent no.1 university since class IX and finished his Masters degree in 2008 after which he applied for Ph.D programme sponsored by Dr.K.R Narayanan Centre for Dalit and Minorities Studies on the topic "Political Empowerment of Muslims-A comparative study of two select Districts in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar". The petitioner was called for the interview for the said course and was recommended by the Board of Studies for the Ph.d but his...
Vijay Nayyar Vs. Om Prakash Malik
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2011
1. This is a petition under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 against impugned order dated 22.01.11 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller whereby the petitioner-tenant's application for grant of leave to defend the eviction petition in respect of the premises under his tenancy filed against him by his landlord(respondent herein) has been dismissed and eviction order has been passed.2. The respondent-landlord had filed an eviction petition u/s 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 in July, 2010 in respect of one shop on the ground floor of property bearing no. B-202, Nehru Vihar, Timarpur, Delhi. It was claimed by the respondent in the eviction that he had three shops in the said property and out of those three shops one had been given to the petitioner and the other two shops he had sold sometime back in order to clear some financial liabilities as he was under heavy debts. Earlier the respondent was employed with NDPL from where he had taken volun...
Sumitra Devi Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2011
1. This judgment will dispose of an appeal directed against a judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi ("Trial Court") dated 22.04.1997, and the order on the point of sentence dated 23.04.1997, in S.C. No. 91/1996. The Appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with further sentence in the event of default. 2. The Appellant was married to Sardar Singh (the "deceased"). She and her husband, along with three sons and four daughters, born out of the wedlock, lived in House No. 67, Munirka. The prosecution alleged that sometime after the marriage, the couple, along with their children, started living away from the deceased's father (who lived in House No. 47). Apparently, at the material time, the deceased was not employed, and was being maintained by his father, Dalpat Singh, who also arranged for the Appellant's job. The prosecution alleged that there were d...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »