Delhi Court July 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Neeraj Mehta Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
1. The petitioner claims to have, in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the Government of India (Cabinet Secretariat), applied for the post of Deputy Field Officer in Government of India Organization and claims to have appeared in the examination held on 15th October, 2000 for the said purpose. It is the case of the petitioner that the result of the said examination was not declared and upon his making enquiry under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), the PIO, the First Appellate Authority as well as the Central Information Commission (CIC) have held that since the organization had been exempted under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, the information could not be allowed. Aggrieved therefrom, the present petition has been filed. 2. The counsel for the respondent appearing on advance notice has contended that the application under the RTI Act was highly belated having been made after nearly 10 years of the examination; that as per the terms of the advertisement in pursuance ...
Naresh Gaur and ors Vs. Gnct of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
1. The four petitioners by this petition impugn the order dated 17th November, 2009 of the Public Grievances Commission (PGC) and seek mandamus for fresh demarcation of land by the respondents no.1&2. It is the case of the petitioners that they have been in continuous possession of land bearing Khasras No.89/2, 93, 94, 180, 267, 269/2, 463 in Village Chhawla, Delhi for the last four decades; that in the consolidation proceedings held between the years 1972 and 1975 in the said village they were allotted plots which fall under Khasras No.89/2, 93, 94, 180, 182, 267, 269/2 & 463 and on which plots the petitioners have made their houses which exist since the year 1972-75. It is further their claim that the aforesaid plots are adjoining to main metal road 62 ft. wide comprised in Khasra No.189. They filed this petition when facing threat of demolition of their houses by the respondents pursuant to the direction in the order dated 17th November, 2009 of the PGC. 2. A perusal of the ...
Rajesh Agarwal Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. This is the third round of litigation involving the Petitioner and the Respondents pertaining to sanction of the building plans submitted by the Petitioner for development of the property at Bungalow No. 167, Chapel Street, Meerut Cantonment.2. Earlier the Petitioner filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1056 of 2009 challenging an order dated 20th February 2009 whereby in exercise of its power to review under Section 57 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 („CA 2006) the Government of India („GOI) in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) (Respondent No.1) set aside a decision dated 4th January 2008 of the Cantonment Board („CB), Meerut (Respondent No. 3) sanctioning the building plans submitted by the Petitioner. By its decision dated 16th February 2010, this Court allowed the said writ petition and set aside the said order dated 20th February 2009 of the GOI, as communicated to the CEO, CB Meerut on 25th February 2009, essentially on the ground that it had been passed without affordin...
Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha Vs. Rakesh Sethi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. This is a suit for injunction, damages and delivery up of the infringing products and material. The plaintiff which is also trading as Casio Computer Company Limited, is registered in Japan. The plaintiff also has a subsidiary company incorporated in India. The plaintiff company was founded by Late Kashio Tadao in April, 1946 and claims to be the inventor of world's first compact, all electric calculator. The plaintiff company is manufacturing a large number of products including calculators. The plaintiff is the owner of the trademark CASIO which was adopted and is being used by it since 1957. The plaintiff company has presence all over world, including in India, and had sale of yen 382154 million, 440567 million and 523528 million in the year 2001-2002, 2002-03 & 2003-04 respectively, and claims to be spending huge amounts in promotion and publicity of its products, being sold under the trademark CASIO. The trademark CASIO is registered in India in various classes including cl...
Smt. Adarsh Kaur Gill Vs. Assistant Director and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. The petition impugns the order dated 26th September, 2003 of the Enforcement Directorate under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), 1973 to the extent it exonerates the respondent No.3 Gurnir Singh Gill and respondent No.4 Smt. S.K. Gill. The petitioner also seeks a mandamus to the Enforcement Directorate to ensure fresh adjudication qua the respondents No.3&4. 2. Notice of the petition was issued on 17th February, 2004 and Rule was issued on 9th November, 2004. The counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for the Enforcement Directorate and the counsel for the respondents No.3&4 have been heard. 3. The Enforcement Directorate had initiated the proceedings against M/s Saz International Pvt. Ltd., petitioner and the respondents No.3&4 for failure to take steps for realization of export outstanding to the tune of US$ 1,37,475. The petitioner as well as the respondents No.3&4 were concerned with the said Company M/s Saz International Pvt. Ltd. The order dated 26 t...
The Secretary, (Railway Board) and anr. Vs. Sh. R.K. Sareen
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. The petitioners, Secretary, Railway Board and the General Manager, Northern Railways have challenged the order dated 12th July, 2007 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No. 760/2005 titled as „Sh. R.K. Sareen v. UOI through the Secretary, Railway Board and Anr.” setting aside the penalty order of withholding of 100% monthly pension on permanent basis and the forfeiture of the entire amount of gratuity that was inflicted upon the respondent, pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings, on the ground that the copy of the second stage advice of Central Vigilance Commission (hereinafter referred to as CVC) was not given to the respondent. Thus leaving the other grounds open and allowing the original application partly, the matter was remitted back by the Tribunal to the Disciplinary Authority in order to serve upon the respondent a copy of the second stage CVC advice and thereafter to take a final decision within a period of two months from the date of...
O.P. Gogne Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. The instant case has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.PC for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 20.04.2011 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge(North), Delhi dismissing the Revision Petition and for setting aside the order dated 05.07.2010 passed in Criminal Complaint No.97/J/10 by the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.PC. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that, on 08.01.2008 Respondent No. 2, who is the elder son of the Petitioner, told the petitioner and his wife that he wanted to marry his first cousin, namely, Minakshi. The petitioner and his wife both opposed the alliance since Respondent No.3 is the daughter of the brother of the wife of petitioner, therefore, both fall within the "degree of prohibited relationship" as defined in clause (g) (iv) of Section 3 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 3. After about six months, Respondent No. 2 again repeated the same proposal. The petitioner was shocked that his own son h...
Union of India and Others Vs. Vinod Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5240/2011 Union of India, Ministry of Urban and Development & Pensions, Poverty Alleviation, has filed the present writ petition to assail the order dated 19th January, 2011, passed in OA No. 726/2010, Vinod Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors. By the impugned order, Tribunal has allowed the aforesaid OA and has quashed the order of penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period of three years without cumulative effect. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent was guilty and responsible for destruction of the ledger pages/file. He has drawn our attention to the fact that the file was under his charge and as per the entry dated 14th May, 1993, made in the file movement register, the file was under his custody and thereafter the file was lost/misplaced from his charge. 3. By Memorandum dated 8th October, 1999, a charge-sheet was served on the ...
State Vs. Lal Mani and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. The State has, by this Petition, sought leave to appeal against a judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 16.09.2010 in S.C. No. 14/2008, by which the three accused (hereafter referred to as "the respondents") were acquitted of the charge of having committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A/304-B read with Section 34 IPC.2. The prosecution alleged that the accused respondents tortured and harassed, and demanded dowry which led to the death of Anju. The allegations of torture, harassment and demand for dowry were made by PW1 Dharmender Prashad, PW2 Ravinder Kumar and PW3 in the statements to the Police after Anju's death. The Trial Court acquitted all the accused due to insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in witnesses' statements.3. According to the prosecution, the deceased Anju got married to accused Vinay Kumar on 02-07-2006. PW1 (brother of deceased Anju), Dharmender Prashad and PW2 Ravinder Kumar deposed that the mother-in-law Lal Mani Dev...
SamiuddIn and Others Vs. Executive Engineer and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. The twelve petitioners have filed this writ petition impugning the notice dated 27th May, 2005 of the Ziledar-I, Head Works Deptt., Agra Canal, Okhla, New Delhi notifying the persons residing unauthorisedly on the land bearing Khasra No.207, Village Okhla, New Delhi Agra Canal that the said land belongs to the Irrigation Deptt. Govt. of U.P. and the said persons should remove their goods and malba from the said land within a month failing which the said land would be vacated with the help of Police Force. 2. It is the contention of the petitioners that their houses do not fall in Khasra No.207 but they were being sought to be dispossessed in pursuance to the notice aforesaid. They, thus sought to restrain the respondents from dispossessing the petitioners on the pretext of clearing the canal land bearing Khasra No.207. 3. Notice of the petition was issued and vide order dated 12th July, 2005 which was made absolute on 24th November, 2005, dispossession of the petitioners stayed. 4. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »