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.
M/S Hydro Air Tectonics (Pcd) Ltd Vs. M/S National Buildings Construct ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2011
1. The petition impugns the communication dated 27th July, 2011 of the respondent no.1 National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd. (NBCC), in pursuance to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, rescinding the contract given to the petitioner for construction of Medical College/Retrofitting work of existing ESIC Hospital at Parel, Mumbai (Maharashtra). 2. There was admitted delay in execution of the work which led to the issuance of the show cause notice. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner however is that the delay is not attributable to the petitioner but owing to the impediments in execution of the work, the works being required to be carried out in an existing/operating/running hospital. 3. It has been enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to how writ jurisdiction can be invoked in such a purely contractual matter. 4. The counsel for the petitioner relies upon Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. Vardan Linkers(2008) 12 SCC 500 which also lays ...
Deepak Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2011
1. Present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29th August, 2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi arising out of FIR No.297/07 registered under Section 302 read with section 34 IPC wherein appellant Deepak has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The appeal is also directed against the order of sentence dated 10th September, 2009 whereby the appellant has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The co-accused i.e. the father of the appellant has been acquitted of the charge. 2. The case of the prosecution is that complainant Hans Raj, PW5, had made a statement to the police, Ex. PW5/A, alleging that on 21st April, 2007, his father Wazir Singh, i.e., the deceased had gone to Patiala House Courts to attend a complaint case filed by him against his brother Sri Kishan i.e., the accused in the present case as well as ...
Ex.Constable Ajay Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2011
1. Joining as a Constable under BSF in the year 1989 and serving till February 1994, petitioner proceeded on leave for 2 months to visit his family when misfortune over-took him. 2. Working on the thresher, the little finger of the left hand at distal phalanx level got amputated and the other fingers of the left hand got amputated at MP level. 3. Rushed to BSF Hospital at R.K.Puram and there from to Safdarjung Hospital, petitioner remained under treatment. When wounds healed, he was found to be unfit to perform duties; and relevant would it be to highlight that as a result of the left hand fingers being amputated at various levels as noted above, the grip which had to exist while holding a fire arm was missing. 4. Rule 25 of the BSF Rules 1969 reads as under:- 25. Retirement of subordinate officer and enrolled persons on grounds of physical unfitness.- (1) Where a Commandant is satisfied that a Subedar, Sub-Inspector or an enrolled person is unable to perform his duties by reason of an...
Phi Learning Private Limited Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) P. Meenakshi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2011
1. This is a suit for permanent injunction. The plaintiff company which was earlier known as Prentice Hall of India Private Limited, is engaged in the business of printing and publishing of books and is stated to be an internationally reputed publishing house, catering to the needs of thousands of students. 2. The defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on 01.12.2004, whereby the plaintiff was granted exclusive rights to print, publish and sell the work „ELEMENTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING under the plaintiffs own name. The rights granted to the plaintiff included rights to publish and re- prints during the full term of the copyright in the aforesaid work. As per clause 3 of the agreement, the plaintiff was required to pay 15% of the net receipts in India on all the copies sold by it, as royalty to the defendant. The plaintiff has, in terms of the aforesaid agreement, been publishing the above title with the first print in the year 2005-2006 and claim...
Sh. Dhani Ram (Decd.) Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2011
1. The challenge in each of the three petitions is to the order dated 16 th May, 2008 of the Collector (North West), Kanjhawla, Delhi. The matter has a chequered history of litigation. For the sake of clarity, reference is made to the petitioner in each case by the name of the original petitioner irrespective of the legal heirs having been substituted. 2. The genesis of the dispute is the scheme for consolidation under the provisions of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (Consolidation Act) finalized on 14th May, 1973 with respect to village Khera Khurd, Delhi. Shri Ram Saroop (petitioner in WP(C) No. 523/2009) was the owner of pre-consolidation Khasra No. 928/1 in the said village. Four residential plots were carved out of the said Khasra (they were given numbers 544, 546, 547 and 548). As per the scheme, every bhumidhar was entitled to allotment of residential plot of maximum limit of 2 (two) bighas. Shri Ram Saroop made a claim for 2...
A.K.Tandon and ors. Vs. Liquidator and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2011
1. The Petitioners 1 and 2, who were working as Deputy Managers (Finance & Accounts), Petitioner No. 3 as Personnel Assistant and Petitioner No. 4 as Senior Assistant (RB) with the Indian Road Construction Corporation Ltd. (`IRCC'), Respondent No. 2, a Government of India enterprise, challenge the decision dated 31st January 2002 of the IRCC, rejecting their representation for release of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (`VRS') compensation. The ground for rejection was that they had been relieved from the IRCC to join the National Highways Authority of India (`NHAI') even prior to their opting for the VRS. 2. By a circular dated 28th/31st March 2000, the IRCC conveyed to its employees a decision of the Government of India (`GoI') to wind up the IRCC. It was conveyed that the GoI had encouraged the employees to opt for the VRS failing which they would be entitled for compensation on closure in terms of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (`ID Act'). This was followed...
Sanjeev Kumar JaIn Vs. Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2011
1. This is a suit for grant of permanent and mandatory injunctions. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff is a tenant in respect of shop No. 11-E (Mezzanine Floor) forming part of building situated on units No. 13 to 29, Block E-, Circle-D, Connaught Place, New Delhi with entrance from the inner circle Connaught Place. The plaintiff also claims to be tenant in respect of Flat No. 4, which is the first floor immediately above the mezzanine floor, forming part of the aforesaid building. The case of the plaintiff is that when late Shri Prem Narain Aggarwal was approached for the change of tenancy in respect of the mezzanine floor, he was offered the tenancy of the first floor and he agreed to the creation of tenancy in respect of the first floor only on the condition that he will have direct access to the first floor via staircase leading from the ground floor of the mezzanine floor, from the front of the building abutting the inner circle of Connaught Place. This, according to t...
Roop Rani Vs. Mcd and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2011
1. The petition impugns the order dated 21 st July, 2011 of the Central Information Commission (CIC) allowing the appeal of one Mr. Mohinder Kumar Mehra and directing the PIO of the respondent MCD to provide attested copies of the plans of all the floors of property No.D-4, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi to the said Mr. Mohinder Kumar Mehra after blanking out the internal walls under Section 10 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 2. The petitioner has not chosen to implead the said Mr. Mohinder Kumar Mehra as a party to this writ petition. On enquiry, the counsel for the petitioner states that since the grievance of the petitioner is against the order directing the MCD, Mr. Mohinder Kumar Mehra is not a necessary party. 3. The said attitude and conduct of the petitioner has but to be deprecated. The petitioner is seeking a walkover without impleading the party interested in contesting the claim of the petitioner before this Court. 4. Be that as it may, the relationship of the said Mr. M...
Samarpan Foundation and ors Vs. Gnct of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2011
1. The petition was filed impugning the order dated 21st January, 2010 of the Additional Session Judge-01 (North-West) District, Rohini Court, Delhi in FIR No.13/2007 directing the shifting of the minor petitioners No.2&3 herein being the children of respondent No.3 Mr. Ashok Kumar accused in the said FIR, from the Children's Home of the petitioner to Ujjawal Niketan, Gurgaon. The father of the children was accused of the murder of his wife and the counsel for the petitioners informs that he has since been convicted. The Court where the father of the petitioners No.2&3 was under prosecution, seeing the plight of the children directed the respondent No.2 Child Welfare Committee to make a provision for them and they were on 11th November, 2010 placed in the care of the petitioner. However, subsequently as aforesaid, the order of their shifting was made. 2. Notice of the petition was issued and the shifting of the minor children stopped. 3. The counsel for the Delhi High Court Le...
National Insurance Company Vs. Jahangir Alam and Another
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2011
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President: 1. In a complaint, filed by the respondent/complainant, 27.7.2011 was fixed for filing the written statement by the OPs. OP No. l National Insurance Company prayed before the Trial Forum to give some time for filing written statement, which the Trial Forum not only declined, but struck off his defence, fixing 3.10.2011 for the evidence of the complainant. 2. That is what brings the appellant/OP No. l National Insurance Company in appeal before this Commission. 3. We have heard Mr. S.L. Gupta, Counsel for the appellant at the Admission stage in this appeal as we feel, that since 3.10.2011 is fixed in the case before the Forum, appeal may be decided without issuing any notice to the respondent/complainant. 4. On query, the Counsel for the appellant has informed us that 27.7.2011 was the first date for appearance before the Forum to file the written version. As 27.7.2011 was the first date in the complaint case, when the Forum struck off the defence of the app...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »