Delhi Court August 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.
Preeti Sharma Vs. School of Correspondence Courses and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
1. No grounds are made out to review the orders dated 6 th December 2004 and 8th October 2010. 2. The applications are dismissed. W. P. (C) 15502/2004 & CM APPL Nos. 11276/2004 and 12333/2004 (for stay) 3. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the Award dated 3 rd March 2004 passed by the Industrial Tribunal („Tribunal) in I. D. No. 143 of 2000. 4. The Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Library Attendant („JLA) in the School of Correspondence Courses and Continuing Education („the School), University of Delhi, Respondent No. 1 on 3rd June 1988. She was promoted as Senior Library Attendant („SLA) on 27th March 1989 and was confirmed on the said post by the Managing Committee („MC) of Respondent No. 1 at its meeting held on 6th March 1992 with effect from 27th March 1989. 5. Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were appointed as JLAs in the School on 22nd August 1990. On 30th November 1992, Respondent No. 2 was promoted to the post of Semi Professional Assistant (&bdquo...
Sushma Arora and ors Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
1. The two writ petitions have been filed by the teaching and non- teaching staff respectively of the respondents M.R.V. Model School, Sector 13, Dwarka, New Delhi and M.R.Vivekanand Model School, Mukhram Park, Tilak Nagar, Delhi, seeking mandamus to the respondent Directorate of Education of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi to ensure compliance by the said schools of the provisions of Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (DSE Act) and Rule 125 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (DSE Rules). Notice of the petitions was issued. However on 7th July, 2008 the counsel for the petitioners withdrew the writ petitions with liberty to file a petition for the same relief before the Delhi School Tribunal. 2. The petitioners thereafter filed applications for re-calling of the order dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn. Notice of the said applications was issued. The petitioners thereafter filed other applications averring that the schools had initiated action of termination of ...
Delhi Abhibhavak Mahasangh and ors. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
1. Controversy has been triggered, prompting filing of all these petitions, as a consequence of the decision of Government of NCT of Delhi in revising the school fee payable by the students studying in various private recognized Schools in Delhi. This decision is contained in order dated 11th February, 2009. Whereas, the parents body representing the students studying in these schools feel that enhancing the fee is unreasonable and without any proper procedure which was required to be followed as per the mandate of law and earlier judgment of this Court as well as the Supreme Court, the Management of these Schools feels otherwise. They are equally dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 11th February, 2009 with a reason just opposite, as according to them, its a meagre enhancement in the fee which fails to match financial burden cast upon the schools as a result of the revision in the pay scale of the Teachers and other staff of the Schools consequent upon implementation of the reco...
Subhash Chander Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 12.09.1997 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Shahdara, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 184/1996 which arose out of FIR No. 227/1991 under Section 302 IPC registered at Police Station Bhajanpura. The appellant was charged for having committed the murder of his wife Smt. Reeta, who was a teacher in a public school on the allegation that he had burnt her alive in the intervening night of 16/17th of May, 1991. They had been married for 7-1/2 years and they also had a child by the name of Karan, who was six years of age at the time of the occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge had found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and, therefore, by a separate order on sentence dated 15.09.1997, the appellant was sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment and a fine of ` 5,000/- was also imposed and, in default of the fine, he was to undergo one month of rigorous imprisonment. 2...
Yadunath Singh Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
1. The facts are not in dispute and thus we may note the same in brief. 2. Joining service under BSF on 7.9.1970, Yadunath Singh earned a promotion and became an Assistant Commandant on 6.11.1998. He earned another promotion when he became a Deputy Commandant on 28.6.2005. 3. He was taken on deputation in the Law Department as a Law Officer Grade II on 13.7.2005 and was permanently absorbed in the law cadre as Law Officer Grade II on 19.12.2006. 4. As per BSF (Chief Law Officers and Law Officers Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1999, vide Schedule II, eligibility to be promoted as Law Officer Grade I was as under:- (a) Law Officer Grade II with 9 years' regular service in the grade; failing which (b) Law Officer Grade II with 4 years' regular service in the grade and having total 9 years' regular service in the pay scale of `10,000-15,200/- in the Force with total 9 years experience in legal affairs. 5. Yadunath Singh admittedly did not have the requisite service either as ...
Asi Jaipal Singh Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
1. The petitioner, a Reader to ACP/T-West, Delhi Police has challenged the order dated 31st October, 2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in O.A No.1606/2005 titled as „HC Jaipal Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors dismissing his original application filed seeking quashing of order dated 24th November, 2003 imposing a penalty of forfeiture of three years of approved service, as well as, the order of the appellate authority dated 4th March, 2005 reducing the punishment of forfeiture from three years to one year of approved service. 2. Brief facts to comprehend the disputes are that the petitioner was placed under suspension from 26th July, 2001 to 6th September, 2002 on account of mismanagement in the office of ACP/T-West District in dealing with the cases of impounded vehicles by various traffic circles of the West District. It was asserted that the mismanagement by the petitioner had resulted in the violation of the orders/directions of t...
Sushil Sharma Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
1. The petitioner had been enrolled in the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as CISF) as an Assistant Sub-Inspector on 28.06.1982. He served CISF for a duration of 28 years and had earned 2 promotions during this period, firstly to the post of Sub-Inspector on 29.03.1990 and then ascending to the post of Inspector on 19.09.2003. On attaining the age of 50 years, petitioners case was placed for assessment by an Internal Screening Committee under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules. The said Committee declared petitioner „Unfit for retention in service, which view was accepted by the Review Committee of CISF resulting in an order being passed on 06.06.2010 by the Competent Authority prematurely retiring the petitioner. 2. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 21.06.2010 before the Representation Committee against the afore-mentioned order. After due deliberations, the Committee found no merit in the representation and rejected the same. 3. Needles...
Dr. K.G. Jolly (Dead Through Lrs) Vs. Institute of Economic Growth and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
1. This petition has been filed by the Petitioner, a former faculty member of the Institute of Economic Growth („IEG) [Respondent No. 1], seeking a direction to Respondents, i.e., IEG, University of Delhi [Respondent No. 3] and the Union of India through Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, [Respondent No. 4] to fix the Petitioners pay in terms of the Fundamental Rule 22-C with effect from March and April 1974, and pay him all arrears of pay allowance and increments. 2. The Petitioner joined the IEG in 1959. In 1973 his pay scale was revised from Rs. 375-25-575 to Rs. 650-30-740-35-880-40-900 with effect from 1st January 1973 in accordance with the Third Pay Commission („TPC) recommendations which were accepted by the IEG. However, the Petitioner drew his salary in the scale of Rs. 350-575 till October 1974 and was paid arrears only up to 28th February 1974. He stated that he had not been paid arrears on account of revision of pay scale from 1st March 1974 to 31st Octob...
Shashi Bhushan Sharma Vs. M/S Indian Sewing Machines Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
1. Mr. Kailash Vasdev, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Respondent states that costs in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- was tendered by way of cheque to the workman through counsel in January 2011 but was not accepted. It was later sent by post but returned undelivered. It is directed that the said sum be given to the Petitioner by way of a demand draft on or before 23rd August 2011. 2. The applications are disposed of. Review Petition No. 123 of 2002 3. Learned counsel for the parties state that this review petition does not survive in view of the subsequent developments. 4. The review application is disposed of. W. P. (C) 6648/2000 & CM APPL No. 13567/2002 5. The challenge in this writ petition is to an Award dated 6 th March 2000 passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 75 of 1986 holding that the inquiry held by the Respondent management, M/s Indian Sewing Machine Co. Ltd. („ISMCL), preceding the dismissal of the Petitioner from service was just and fair. A further prayer i...
Anita Garg Vs. M/S. Glencore GraIn Rotterdam B.V
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2011
1. This Appeal assails the Order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Appellant's Objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act for short) challenging both the Interim Award dated 20.6.1997 as well as the Final Award dated 29.7.1997 passed by The London Rice Brokers' Association (LRBA). These Awards have not been challenged for the first time. In the first instance, M/s Shivnath Rai Harnarain (India), a partnership firm, of which the Appellant before us and her husband, Mr. Prem Chand Garg are partners along with others, filed CS(OS) No.1103/1997; it was prayed that the subject contracts containing an Arbitration Clause are void and not binding on the firm. The Respondents had filed CS(OS) No.541/1998 seeking the enforcement of these Awards which was allowed; and by an Order of even date, the said Suit filed by the Firm was dismissed by Reva Khetrapal, J. Our learned Sister, in her Judgment dated 27.11.2008, had ordered that the Final Aw...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »