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.
Mir Singh Deceased Thru Lrs and ors. Vs. Uoi Thru Lac
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2011
1. Concerned with a notification dated 13.10.1980 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act which resulted in an award No.12/82-83, learned Land Acquisition Collector determined market value of agricultural lands in village Neelwal @ `2,500/- per bigha.2. A perusal of the award would reveal that the learned Land Acquisition Collector had no evidence of any sale transaction in the village as also the adjoining village Hiran Kudna. He had one sale deed pertaining to the next adjoining village i.e. Dichaun Kalan, and treating the same to be the evidence, the Land Acquisition Collector opined that value of agricultural land in village Dichaun Kalan would be `2,000/- per bigha, which was opined to be the fair market value of agricultural land in the adjoining village Hiran Kudna as well. But, keeping in view the situational and locational advantage of the revenue estate of village Neelwal, the learned Land Acquisition Collector determined `2,500/- per bigha as the fair market value...
K.R. Cultural and Welfare Society (Regd.) Vs. Dda
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2011
1. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 4th August, 2006 of the respondent DDA cancelling the allotment of land in favour of petitioner for construction of Community Hall in Pocket No.10, Sector-15, Rohini, New Delhi.2. Notice of the petition was issued and upon the senior counsel for the petitioner relying upon R.K. Saxena v. DDA 90 (2001) DLT 752 (SC) status quo directed to be maintained. The said order has continued in force till now. The pleadings have been completed. The counsels have been heard.3. The respondent DDA had vide letter dated 18th January, 2002 allotted the land aforesaid to the petitioner. Clause 9 of the said letter is as under:- "9. The payment and the acceptance letter with the required undertaking must be sent within 60 days interest at the rate of 18% shall be chargeable for the delay period up to 6 months of the issue this letter, after completion of 6 months from the date of issue, the allotment shall be automatically cancelled, if the society ...
Rabindra Jha Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2011
1. We put on record our pain and anguish at the manner in which officers of the Ministry of Home Affairs have dealt with the matter.2. We have perused the File No.C- 17011/4/2011/CC/Pers./BSF in which various notings have been made and indeed would highlight that the same reflects the usual bureaucratic answers. To the question: "Where does Ram live"? The bureaucratic answer: "Opposite Shyams house". To the question: "Where does Shyam live?", the bureaucrat answer: "Opposite Rams house" is to be found. Frustrated; and putting the question: "Where do Ram and Shyam live"? The bureaucrat answer: "Opposite each other" is to be found.3. This is the way notes have been penned.4. The issue at hand is short. The notified recruitment rules to the post of Asstt.Commandant under BSF envisage 50% posts to be filled up by direct recruitment, 33% by promotion from amongst the eligible Inspectors and the remaining 17% by way of a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE).5. We highlight tha...
Chanchal JaIn Vs. Securities Exchange Board of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2011
1. The petitioners, all of whom are distributors and sell mutual funds to investors have challenged the judgment and order dated 24.7.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing WP(C) No.10390/2009, in which petition the challenge was to a policy circular laying down guidelines; being the circular dated 30.6.2009.2. Relevant portion of the circular which was challenged reads as under:-"(a) There shall be no entry load for all mutual fund schemes.(b) The scheme application forms shall carry a suitable disclosure to the effect that the upfront commission to distributors will be paid by the investor directly to the distributor, based on his assessment of various factors including the service rendered by the distributor.(c) Of the exit load or CDSC charged to the investor, a maximum of 1% of the redemption proceeds shall be maintained in a separate account which can be used by the AMC to pay commissions to the distributor and to take care of other marketing and selling expenses. An...
Bharat Singh and Others Vs. Uoi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2011
CM 906/2011 in LA.App.No.500/2008(Exemption) Allowed, subject to just exceptions.CM 2171/2011 in LA.App.No.500/2008 (Delay) For the reasons stated in the application the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.LA.App.No.500/2008 and the other above captioned connected matters1. A large chunk of land in the revenue estate of village Kilokari, Nangli Rajapur, Garhi Mendu and Khizrabad were acquired pursuant to a notification dated 23.6.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the purpose of the acquisition was channelization of Yamuna River. Pertaining to the said notification, vide judgment and order dated 7.6.2011, dealing with lands in village Kilokari, Nangli Rajapur and Khizrabad I had dismissed all the appeals and cross objections holding that the fair market value of the subject lands assessed at `89,600/- per bigha by the learned Reference Court was correct. I had noted therein that the learned Reference Court had personally visited the site and had prepared a r...
Mcd and ors. Vs. Hem Raj and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2011
These are the applications filed by the petitioners/applicants for condoning the delay of 29 days in re-filing the review application and for condonation of 11 days delay in filing the review petition. The petitioners/applicants have contended that the review petition was filed without an application for delay and consequently, it was received back with defect on 18th April, 2011. The application for condonation of delay was received by the applicants on 26th April, 2011. However, the petition could not be filed as the „Certificate of Fitness was not appended to the application and consequently, after the petitioners counsel received the petition back on 9th May, 2011 and prepared the appropriate „Fitness Certificate, it was re-filed on 16th May, 2011. The review application was again returned on 3rd June, 2011 but on account of summer holidays, the review application could not be filed leading to delay of 29 days in re-filing the review application.Regarding 11 days delay ...
Wg. Cdr. (Retd.) P.P.S. Kwatra Vrc Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2011
S.S. Dhillon, Member: 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that although he was granted the rank of Wing Commander on 10th October 1984, he was actually paid the salary for this rank only with effect from May 1986. In the meantime his juniors have been promoted on due date and are being paid higher salaries from the date of their promotion. This delayed salary to him has resulted in him being deprived of two increments which has also impacted on his pension entitlements after retirement. He, therefore, seeks regularisation of this anomaly and he be paid his entitled salary, increment and pensionary dues. 2. The petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Air Force on 31st December 1967 in the fighter stream. The petitioner is a war decorated hero and recipient of Vir Chakra. The petitioner was sent on deputation to Iraq from April 1984 till May 1986. During this period he was considered by a promotion board and was accordingly promoted to the post of Wing Commander in October 1984. How...
Ramendra Pal Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2011
A.K.Mathur, Chairperson 1. This Writ Petition has been transferred from the Delhi High Court. 2. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the order passed by Respondent dated 26.2.2004 and 26.2.2007 may be quashed and respondent may be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. 3. The petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 15.7.1998. Thereafter he completed his recruitment training and joined 18 Grenadiers, at Srinagar on 20.2.2000 and was posted to Coy. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner was performing his duties with utmost devotion and sincerity and has also attended the UN Mission to Sierra Leone. During November/ December, 2002, unit was located in field and was deployed in OP Parakaram at Ferozpur. He was court martialled for charge of murder. 4. The case of prosecution was that on 2.12.2002 at about 0935 hrs, complainant heard 6 to 8 shots fired from the direction of Vill. Hazara Singh Wala and he immediately activ...
Suresh Kumar Sud and ors Vs. Uoi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-2011
1. This is the second round of battle for the petitioners who happen to be in the Research Faculty as Scientific & Design staff with respondent No.3, namely, the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "IIT, Delhi"). Admittedly, there are two well-defined services; one is the „teaching cadre” and, the other the „scientific cadre”, though both the „teaching staff” and the „scientific & design staff” get inducted into the service under one common codified Act, Statutes, Rules and Regulations. The main job of the petitioners who are in the scientific cadre is to conduct research and promote development activities. In contradistinction to the above, the teaching cadre is primarily devoted to teaching and Professors are selected for their knowledge and ability to be effective teachers and for them, research is an ancillary activity. It appears that the IIT, Delhi was facing shortage of teaching staff and s...
Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer-ward 8(4) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-2011
1. The petitioner is a company, which was incorporated on 30th September, 2002 and for the first year, i.e., the assessment year 2003-04, had filed its return of income on 31st March, 2005. The return was not selected for scrutiny. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued two notices dated 22nd March, 2010 and 29th March, 2010 under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) for assessment. The petitioner has impugned these two notices on the ground that the pre- conditions for issue of notice under Section 148 are not satisfied and, therefore, the Assessing Officer is exceeding his jurisdiction. The petitioner has also impugned the order dated 15th November, 2010 passed by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward 8(4), New Delhi rejecting their objections to initiation of proceedings under Section 148 of the Act. The said order was passed as the assessee had filed objections to the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 and in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in GKN...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »