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.
Dtc Vs. Narendra Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-2011
1. The challenge in the writ petition is to the award dated 2 nd June, 2008 of the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference:- "Whether Sh. Narender Kumar S/o Shri Govind Ram has been removed from services by the management illegally and/or justifiably, if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect." of reinstatement with 50% of the back wages, only in so far as the relief granted to the respondent workman of 50% of the back wages is concerned; else it is stated that the petitioner employer has no objection to reinstatement of the respondent workman. 2. Notice of the writ petition was issued and the operation of the award stayed. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent workman and the counsels for the parties have been heard. 3. The Industrial Adjudicator has in the award, qua back wages held that though the respondent workman had in his statement of claim alleged that he had been unemployed since the date of termination but ...
Ram Pal and anr. Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-2011
1. The two petitioners who claim to have support of at least 13 other residents, are the residents of Village Dera Mandi, New Delhi and have filed this petition to restrain the respondents from implementing the proposal for constructing Choupal/Panchayat Ghar on land bearing Khasra No.84/11/2 in the said village. The petitioners who claim to be belonging to the Prajapati Community (Landless Class) claim that they are using the said land for the purpose of pottery and extracting soil therefrom for making earthenwares. 2. Notice of the petition was issued and vide interim order the respondents restrained from demolishing the construction which the petitioners claimed to have raised over the said land. Counter affidavit has been filed. The respondents have also filed an additional affidavit to which a response is stated to have been filed by the petitioners. Since the same was not on record, the counsel for the petitioners has handed over a copy which is taken on record. 3. The counsel f...
Karim Morani Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-2011
1. Karim Morani, the petitioner herein is seeking interim bail in case RC No. DAI-2009-A-0045 on medical grounds. 2. At the outset, it may be noted that the petitioner filed a regular bail application being Bail Application No. 883/2011 wherein he also filed an application for interim bail being Crl.Misc. Bail No. 1068/2011 with the prayer that during the pendency of his regular bail application, taking into account the medical condition of the petitioner, he may be released on interim bail. 3. On 27th June, 2011, learned counsel for the petitioner withdrew the regular bail application. So far as the application for grant of interim bail is concerned, he stated that the petitioner was discharged after certain tests by G.B.Pant Hospital on 24th June, 2011 and certain other test reports were still awaited. Thus, he sought adjournment for argument on application for interim bail. 4. When it was pointed out as to how the application for interim bail survives when the main bail application ...
M/S Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Santra Devi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-2011
1. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 24 th July, 2008 of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The order records, that there is no dispute about the employment death of late Sh. Om Prakash (i.e. the husband of the respondent No.1) employed as a Fitter with the petitioner DTC and computes the compensation under the Act at `72,288/- and directs payments thereof together with interest @12% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the claim i.e. 31 st August, 2006. 2. The challenge by the petitioner to the said order is only on the ground that the responsibility for payment of the said compensation was of the respondent No.2 M/s Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) and not of the petitioner. On the said plea of the petitioner, notice of the petition was issued and the operation of the order stayed. 3. The respondent No.1 being the wife / widow of the workman has filed a counter affidavit denying any knowledge of insurance and pleading ...
Dtc Vs. Ram Avtar Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-2011
1. The challenge in the writ petition is to the award dated 2 nd May, 2008 of the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference:- "Whether the removal from service of Sh. Ram Avtar Sharma is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled to and what directions are necessary in this respect?" of reinstatement with 50% of the back wages, only insofar as the relief granted to the respondent workman of 50% of the back wages is concerned; else the respondent workman has in pursuance to the award been reinstated. 2. Notice of the writ petition was issued and the implementation of the award stayed. The pleadings have been completed and the counsels for the parties have been heard. 3. The Industrial Adjudicator has in the award, qua back wages held that the respondent workman in his statement of claim had stated that he has not been gainfully employed since the date of illegal termination and that he tried for job continuously but could not get the same and was being s...
M/S K.E.Burgmann a/S Vs. H.N.Shah and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-2011
1. This is a suit for grant of permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, delivery up of the infringing material and damages. Plaintiff No. 1 is a company registered in Denmark whereas plaintiff No. 2 is a subsidiary of plaintiff No.1 and is registered in India. Plaintiff No. 1 company was founded by Mr. Keld Ellentoft for developing, designing and manufacturing, fabric, elastomer and fluropolymer expansion joints/compensators, which are installed to accommodate thermal expansion/contraction of the ducting system due to rise and fall in temperature and claims to be a well known manufacturer of these products carrying business in several countries including U.K., Scandinavian countries, North and South America and South Korea. Pursuant to Joint Venture Agreements dated 15.1.1987 and 6.5.1987 the first agreement between plaintiff No. 1 F.Harlay and Company and the second between it and the directors of F. Harlay and Company, defendant No. 2 was incorporated in India on 14.5.1987, for t...
Maya Devi and ors. Vs. the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-2011
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 07.09.2009 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in MACT No. 889/08. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that on 07.03.2006, one Shri Vijender Singh met with an accident while travelling on his motorcycle bearing no. DL-9SN-4753 alongwith his wife, Smt. Maya Devi. The said Shri Vijender Singh (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") died as a result thereof, whereas Smt. Maya Devi suffered injuries on her person. Two separate claim petitions bearing MACT No.887/08 and 889/08 were filed, the former by Smt. Maya Devi claiming compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by her and the latter seeking compensation for the death of her husband Shri Vijender Singh. Both these petitions were filed against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, bearing No.HR-55-0936. The Tribunal decided bot...
Pradeep Kumar Sethi Vs. Rajender Kumar Sethi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-2011
1. This is a petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 against the order dated 25.01.10 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller whereby the petitioner-tenants application for grant of leave to defend the eviction petition in respect of first floor of premises no. H-68, B.K.Dutt Colony, New Delhi(hereinafter to be referred to as „the tenanted premises) filed against him by his landlord(respondent herein) has been dismissed and eviction order has been passed against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the brother of the respondent. The respondent had filed the eviction petition against the petitioner on the allegations that he was the owner of the tenanted premises comprising of two rooms, kitchen, latrine and bathroom and he had let out the same to his brother at a monthly rent of Rs.1500/- w.e.f. 31.03.98 and now he requires the premises in the possession of his brother bona fide for his residence and that of his servant. It was pleaded in the ev...
Yogesh Sharma Vs. the State (Govt. of Nct)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-2011
1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of learned ACMM dated 1st November, 2004 and the consequent order on sentence of the even date whereby the petitioner Yogesh Sharma has been convicted for offence under Section 471 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year, besides fine of ` 1000/- and also the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in appeal dated 28th January, 2005, whereby he dismissed the appeal on merits. 2. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that the petitioner Yogesh Sharma was undergoing trial in case FIR No.312/97 under Sections 427/451/506 IPC, P.S. Sultanpur. He failed to put in appearance on hearing dated 26th September, 2003 and sent his son Kapil with a medical certificate Ex.PW1/A purportedly issued by Alpana Medicare Centre and an application seeking exemption from personal presence through his counsel Sh. Pradeep Tyagi, Advocate. Learned M.M., in order to confirm the genuineness of medical certificate, conducte...
R N Upadhyay Vs. Delhi Transco Ltd and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-2011
1. The petitioner was an employee of the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB). He was charge sheeted on 30th January, 1995 and which charge sheet ultimately resulted in the Disciplinary Authority of the DVB on 28 th December, 1998 imposing major penalty on the petitioner. The departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner was also unsuccessful. The petitioner ultimately filed W.P.(C) No.7339/1999 in this Court which was disposed of on 19th April, 2002; the order of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority were quashed; however, it was left open to the Disciplinary Authority to issue fresh notice to the petitioner stating the reasons for disagreeing with the report of the Inquiry and calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the Disciplinary Authority should not differ from the report of the Inquiry Officer. 2. In pursuance of the above, the Memorandum dated 25 th November, 2002 asking the petitioner to show cause and impugned in the present petition was issued. 3. Noti...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »