Delhi Court August 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.
S.P. Arya Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2011
1. The Petitioner challenges an Award dated 16th June 1990 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal („CGIT) in ID No. 112 of 1990 upholding the validity of the action of Respondent No. 3, Life Insurance Corporation of India („LIC), in removing the Petitioner from service with effect from 11th August 1980. 2. The Petitioner joined the services of the LIC on 4th December 1963 as an Office Assistant. The service conditions of the Petitioner were covered by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 1960 („Staff Regulations) framed under Section 49 (2) (b) and (bb) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956 („LIC Act). The Petitioner states that he was an active trade union member and the General Secretary of the Meerut Division of the Insurance Employees Union. He was also at one time its President. The Petitioner states that in April 1975 while he was Joint Secretary of the Central Zone Insurance Employees Federation he broug...
M/S. Silicon Graphics Systems India Private Limited Vs. Nidas Estates ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2011
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.45,23,414/-. The plaintiff and defendant No.1, both of which are Private Limited Companies, entered into a license agreement dated 1st September 1995 in respect of premises bearing No.305-A and 305-B, Embassy Square, 148 Infantry Road, Bangalore. Under the agreement the aforesaid premises was given to the plaintiff company on license for a period of 36 months and license was renewable for another term of three years. The license was accordingly renewed for a further period of three years expiring on 31st August 2001. The plaintiff company also deposited a sum of Rs.2,02,100/- as security with Karnataka Electricity Board on behalf of defendant No.1 company. This amount according to the plaintiff was agreed to be refunded to it by defendant No.1 on expiry of the license. Another sum of Rs.6,25,000/- was deposited by the plaintiff with defendants No.2 and 3 for providing standby generating sets and upkeep and maintenance of the premises subject matter ...
S.S. Singh Vs. National Aviation Company of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2011
1. The Petitioner challenges an order dated 6th May 1998 issued by the General Manager, Engineering (Maintenance) of Air India Limited („AIL), Respondent No.1 herein, awarding the Petitioner punishment of withdrawal of his next two annual increments which would have the effect of postponement of subsequent increments under the provisions of Certified Standing Orders („CSO). The Petitioner was also warned that recurrence of any act of misconduct on his part in future would be viewed seriously and stern action would be taken against him. 2. The Petitioner joined AIL on 15th October 1979 as an Aircraft Technician and was confirmed as such on 1st April 1980. He was promoted to the post of a Senior Aircraft Technician on 1st November 1984 and as a Master Technician on 1st November 1989. The Petitioner states that on 1st July 1996, he was due for promotion for the post of Lead Master Technician which was re-designated as Senior Service Engineering-I as per the revised promotion p...
Sh. Jagan Nath Vs. Dda
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2011
1. This is a second appeal filed by appellant-plaintiff in whose favour the trial Court had passed a decree in his suit for injunction directing the respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA) not to cancel the allotment on hire purchase basis of the Janata flat for which he had got himself registered with DDA in the year 1989 but the first Appellate Court in appeal filed by the respondent-defendant had reversed that judgment and decree and dismissed the suit. 2. Though initially DDA was being represented in the matter but from 13th May 2009 onwards none has been appearing on its behalf for the reasons best known only to DDAs legal department which has failed to ensure the presence of its counsel. Thus, on 19th August, 2011 this Court had after hearing the counsel for the appellant alone formulated the following substantial question of law which was considered to be arising for the decision of this Court:- "1. Whether the Appellate Court was justified in reversing the trial Courts jud...
Gurucharan Singh Vs. the Director of Cbi and Anrs.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2011
1. This is a petition, filed by the petitioner, seeking a direction to the CBI to register an FIR and initiate action on the basis of the complaints purported to have been made by the petitioner, copies of which are annexed as Annexures P1 to P4 to the petition. It has been further prayed that the petitioner be given security so that the petitioner's life is saved. During the course of the submissions, Mr.Ramesh Gupta, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued to the CBI to register an FIR on the basis of the complaint and initiate an investigation into the matter and bring the guilty to the book. 2. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant is alleged to have made a written complaint on 13.01.2004 to the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, wherein allegations have been made against one Gurcharan Singh of M/s.D.Paul Consumer Benefit Ltd., alleging that he was dealing in Hawala transacti...
Laxmi NaraIn Vs. Bhagwanti
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2011
1. This is a revision petition under section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against the order dated 25.05.2009 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller dismissing the application filed by the petitioner-tenant seeking leave to defend the eviction petition filed by his landlady, respondent herein, in respect of one room on the ground floor of premises bearing no. 2937, Arya Nagar, Subzi Mandi, Delhi under Section 14(1)(e). As a result of dismissal of the leave application eviction order has been passed against the petitioner-tenant. 2. The respondent-landlady, who has died after filing of the present petition and is now being represented by her legal representatives, had sought eviction of the petitioner on the ground that she required the premises under the tenancy of the petitioner for herself and her four sons and their families out whom two sons were living separately as they could not be accommodated in property no. 2937 due to shortage of space there. She also ple...
Major Viveky Rai Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2011
1. On 6th November 2003, petitioners wife, Sarita Rai received gun shot wounds at their matrimonial house around 14:45 hours and expired before she could be shifted to the hospital. Pertaining to the incident information was lodged with the local police and investigation revealed that a carbine issued to the petitioner, a Major in the Territorial Army, was the weapon of offence. The petitioner was taken into custody and was tried for the offence of having murdered his wife. The incident took place in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and thus the petitioner was tried for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code as also Section 30 of the Arms Act. The trial was conducted before the Court of Sessions. 2. Due to the seriousness of the offence and the charge against the petitioner, he was taken into custody. Bail was denied to him. He was lodged in a prison as an under-trial in Jammu. He was placed under suspension. 3. That the deceased died as a result of gun shot inj...
Gail(India) Limited Vs. Geo Miller and Company Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2011
1. The neat question which arises for our consideration in this Appeal is whether the Arbitrator as well as the learned Single Judge fell into error in awarding the sum of ` 22,29,840/-, avowedly withheld by the Appellant on account of liquidated damages. According to Mr. Jagjit Singh, learned counsel for the Appellant, the Award was facially in excess of the jurisdiction and the powers reposed in the Arbitrator as it transgressed Clause 27 of the Contract dealing with compensation for delay (liquidated damages). Learned counsel for the Appellant has relied on - (i) Bharat Coking Coal Limited -vs- Annapurna Construction, (2003) 8 SCC 154 where Their Lordships had found that the Arbitrator had exceeded his jurisdiction inasmuch as it had not taken into consideration relevant clauses of the contract for purposes of determining the fact situation. (ii) In West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation -vs- Sushil Kumar Kayan, AIR 2002 SC 2185 the finding is to the effect that the Arbitrator re...
Dushyant Verma Vs. Tek Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2011
1. No one appears on behalf of the respondent even on the third call. It is already 2:30 pm. Therefore, I am left with no alternative but to dispose of the matter after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Dushyant Verma, proprietor of M/s Sholphin (India), the petitioner herein, vide instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is seeking quashing of the criminal complaint No.42/J/09 under Section 138 N.I. Act pending in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts as also the quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 29.01.2009 and the subsequent proceedings pursuant to the summoning order. 3. Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that respondent No.2 filed a complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act against the petitioner, claiming that the petitioner took a friendly loan of `1.5 lakhs from the respondent No.2. For the liquidation of said loan, the petitioner issued two cheques bearing Nos.157072 and 157079 resp...
M/S Bharat Wagon and Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2011
1. This petition is directed against an award dated 4th May 2000 passed by the Labour Court allowing the claim of Respondent No. 2 workman in ID No. 64 of 1991. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court held the termination of the services of the workman to be bad in law and directed his reinstatement with 50% back wages. 2. In his statement of claim filed before the Labour Court, Respondent No. 2 stated that he was appointed by the management of Respondent No. 1 as a cleaner/attendant on daily wages with effect from 13th May 1985 to 30th August 1986. Thereafter, by a letter dated 26th August 1986, he was appointed on a monthly salary of Rs. 750/- with effect from 1st September 1986. The said letter indicated that the appointment was for a temporary period of twelve months and during that period, his services were subject to termination with twenty-four hours notice „without assigning any reason. 3. The services of Respondent No. 2 were terminated with effect from 31st August 1987,...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »