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.
Union of India and ors. Vs. S.C. Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. The respondent herein while working as Senior Accounts Officer (SAO) was issued a Memorandum of Chargesheet on 28th August, 1993 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The allegations made in the said chargesheet was that the respondent had issued cheque bearing No. AX-305405 dated 19th August, 1991 for ` 1,63,920/- to a non-existent firm M/s Beena Shoppies, General Suppliers at Dehradun by the office of DCDA (R & D), Dehradun with reference to local purchase bill, alleged to have emanated from Defence Electronics Application Laboratory, Dehradun but was disowned by the said Laboratory and so a preliminary investigation was carried out which revealed that respondent had attempted to embezzle public money to the tune of ` 1,63,920/- by causing issue of a cheque in favour of a non- existing firm and for handing over the cheque personally to a person whose whereabouts were not known. 2. A regular departmental enquiry was held after appointing an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Of...
Nishit Kumar JaIn Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. The petitioner herein is an employee in the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) which comes under the Ministry of Defence. He joined as Scientist grade „B” in DRDO w.e.f. 24th April, 1987. The petitioner was promoted as Scientist grade „C” w.e.f. 1st July, 1993. Next promotion is to the post of Scientist grade „D”. These promotions are governed by the recruitment rules called „Defence Research and Development Service Rules, 1979”. Rule 6 of these Rules deals with the method of recruitment and, inter alia, stipulates the method of promotion as well as direct recruitment. Rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules deals with the initial constitution of service. We are here concerned with Rule 8. Before the amendment to this Rule in 1996, the relevant portion of the same read as under:- "8. Future maintenance of the service:- (1) After the initial constitution of the Service has been completed by the appointment of officers in accorda...
North Delhi Power Ltd. and ors. Vs. Surender Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. The short issue which arises in the present petition is whether a prosecution case can be thrown out at the stage of charge itself on the ground that there was no notification authorizing the concerned officer to carry out the inspection on the date when the inspection was carried out. 2. In these petitions complaints were filed against the Respondents for committing the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003(in short „the Act) on the basis of raids allegedly conducted by the inspection teams in the premises of the Respondents on 25th September, 2003, 26th February, 2004, 12th March, 2004 and 8th January 2004 respectively. All these inspections were carried out prior to 31st March, 2004 when the notification of the Government of NCT of Delhi (Department of Power) was issued empowering the technical officers of the rank of managers/executive engineers and above in the departments dealing with distribution, commercial and enforcement functions as authorized offic...
Nivedita Sharma Vs. the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. The petitioner-Nivedita Sharma had invested Rs.26,000/- in ICICI Bonds, 1996. She was issued five bonds of face value of Rs.2,00,000/- each with maturity date 15th July, 2021, but with an option for premature redemption. The bonds were in nature of deep discount. The relevant clause relating to premature option for early redemption reads as follows:- "(2) Early Redemption. The holder(s) of the Bond(s)/the Company shall have the option of Early Redemption of the Bond only at the date and at the Deemed Face Value mentioned below: a) On July 15, 2001 for Rs.11,000 b) On July 15, 2006 for Rs.24,000 c) On July 15, 2011 for Rs. 50,000 d) On July 15, 2016 for Rs. 1,00,000 (3) Procedure for Redemption/Early Redemption by Bondholders. The Bond Certificates, duly discharged by the Sole/all the joint-holders (signed on the reverse of the Bond Certificate) to be surrendered for Redemption on maturity or on Early Redemption should be sent by the Bondholder(s) by Registered Post with Acknowledgem...
Bhagwan Singh Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. On 06.7.1991 the petitioner was dismissed from service. The order is the culmination of petitioner being stated to have pleaded guilty at the Summary Court Martial. 2. The writ petition filed by the petitioner in the year 1993 unfortunately remained pending in the record room of this Court till it was transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal upon the constitution of the Tribunal when the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 was promulgated. 3. On transfer before the Tribunal, the writ petition was registered as T.A. No. 97/2009. 4. Holding in favour of the petitioner that there was no evidence that the petitioner had pleaded guilty, the sentence and the conviction at the Summary Court Martial has been set aside. 5. The Tribunal directed that the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service till he attains minimum pensionable service, after which he would be deemed to have been discharged and would be entitled to pension and other retiral benefits. No order on back wages. 6. Petitioner grie...
Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors. Vs. Constable (Dvr) Ashok Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-2011
1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 10th October, 2006, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.258/2005 titled as Constable (DVR) Ashok Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.?, directing the petitioners to grant the relief of 50% of the salary to the respondent for the period of 14th May, 1991 to 2nd October, 2002 and also in granting the full salary for the period of 3rd October , 2002 to 9th June, 2003, if not already paid, after deducting the subsistence allowance, if any paid. The original application had been filed by the respondent seeking the quashing and setting aside of the appellate authority order dated 25th February, 2004 whereby one year of approved service of the respondent was forfeited with consequential benefits in terms of seniority, promotion etc.2. The punishment was imposed on the respondent pursuant to a departmental enquiry on the charge that while being posted in 1st Bn DAP he was detailed for duty w...
Ravinder Nath Aand anr. Vs. Best Entertainment (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-2011
1. By this order I shall dispose of the present application filed by the defendant/applicant under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying that the parties be referred to arbitration, in terms of clause 16 of the lease deed dated 03.03.2003 executed between the parties.2. The brief facts of the case, as per the plaint, are that plaintiffs are the owners of the property bearing No.B-88, Niti Bagh, New Delhi, and vide registered lease deed dated 03.03.2003 they had created the tenancy in favour of the defendant in respect of the said property. The said lease agreement was for the period of five years w.e.f. 01.07.2003 to 30.06.2008.3. It is averred in the plaint, that there was an undertaking of the defendant to vacate the suit property on or before 30.06.2008 and before the expiry of the lease, the plaintiff, sent a notice dated 25.06.2008 reminding the defendant of its obligation under law to vacate the said premises by 30.06.2008. But, the defendant failed to v...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›