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.
Vishwa Mitter Thukral Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2011
1. The Petitioner is the owner of shop-cum-flat No. 137, Sarojini Nagar Market („SNM ), New Delhi. He filed this writ petition on 15th September 2005 seeking the quashing of a demand dated 24th August 2005 raised by the Land & Development Office („L&DO ) in the Ministry of Urban Development („MoUD ), Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi, Government of India, calling upon him to pay misuse charges, damage charges for unauthorized construction and ground rent for grant of conversion of the property from lease hold to free hold. The Petitioner further challenges the breach notices dated 2nd June 2004 and 27th August 2005 issued by the L & DO. The Petitioner also seeks a direction to the Respondents to process the Petitioner s application for conversion from leasehold to freehold and execute the necessary conveyance deed in favour of the Petitioner in respect of the said shop-cum-flat No. 137, SNM, New Delhi. 2. On 22nd September 2005, Mr. Deepak Khadaria, learned counsel...
Ct.Narender Kumar and ors. Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2011
1. Briefly put the facts leading to the filing of the above- captioned petitions are that petitioners Narender Kumar, Kaptan Singh and Raj Bahadur Singh were employed as Constables and petitioner Om Prakash was employed as a Naik with the Border Security Force (hereinafter referred to as the „BSF”) and were attached to the 88th Bn. deployed at village Chhaturgul in District Srinagar on 23.12.1996. 2. On 24.12.1996, the prosecutrix complained to Subedar Ajit Singh PW-1, that the petitioners had raped her in the night of 23.12.1996. 3. In view of the serious allegations leveled by the prosecutrix, Mr.Shailesh Kumar, 2-IC was detailed to conduct a preliminary inquiry. Conducting an inquiry he found a prima-facie case in favour of the complainant and taking cognizance of the report the Commandant framed following charge against the petitioners:- "BSF ACT COMMITTING A CIVIL OFFENCE, THAT IS SEC 46 TO SAY, RAPE PUNISHABLE u/s 376 IPC In that they, At Chack (Chhaturgul) on 23/12/9...
Kamla Rani and anr. Vs. Joginder Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2011
1. This is a suit for declaration. The case of the plaintiffs is that they purchased second floor of property No.108 comprised in Khasra No.250 of Mehrauli from defendant No.1 on 21.05.2004 and the sale deed was duly executed by defendant No.1 in their favour. The sale deed by defendant No.1 was executed as attorney of the previous owner Smt. Deep Mala. This is also the case of the plaintiffs that possession of the aforesaid property had already been delivered to them on 29.03.2004. It later transpired that in a sham transaction, defendant No.1 had conveyed title of the aforesaid property to defendant No.2 in a clandestine manner. Defendant No.2 then took a loan from defendant No.3 - Allahabad Bank on the strength of the title deed executed by defendant No.1 in his favour. The plaintiffs have accordingly sought a declaration that the right, title and interest in the second floor of property No.108 comprised in Khasra No.250 of Mehrauli vest with them and the sale deed executed by defen...
Larsen and Toubro Limited and anr Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2011
1. In this writ petition, there is a challenge to the rejection letter dated 18.08.2010, whereby the petitioner No.1's bid has been rejected by the respondent No.2 (NTPC) on the ground of it being non-responsive in terms of clause 21 of the Instructions to Bidders (ITB) read alongwith Item No.4 of the Bid Data Sheet (BDS), Section-III. Consequently, the respondent No.2 also returned the bank guarantee submitted by the petitioner No.1 towards bid security. 2. It may be pointed out straightaway that the rejection was on the ground that the Deed of Joint Undertaking (DJU), which was to be submitted by the bidders, including the petitioner No.1, was found to be not in accordance with the prescribed format and was, therefore, regarded as being non-compliant. It is for this reason that the respondent No.2 (NTPC) rejected the bid submitted by the petitioner No.1. However, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the rejection is bad inasmuch as the requirement of furnishing a Dee...
Vitasta Publishing Private Ltd Vs. Georg Thieme Verlag Kg
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2011
1. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a Cooperation Agreement dated 19th December 2005, whereby the plaintiff was granted exclusive rights to market and promote, throughout the territory specified in the agreement, the then current publishing programme (excluding the on-line products) of the defendant to the extent they were available for sale in the specified territory. This was followed by a second Cooperation Agreement effecting from 1st January 2008, for a fixed tenure of three years. 2. The parties also entered into separate Exclusive Reprint Agreements in respect of 27 titles mentioned in para 4.8 of the plaint. Under the agreements for reprint rights, the plaintiff was required to pay an agreed sum, mentioned in each agreement, to the defendant as licence fee, within 90 days from the date of the invoice. Para 12 of the agreement provided that in the event of the publisher i.e. the plaintiff failing to comply with any of the terms and conditions of the agreement, and su...
A.K. Kulshrestha Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2011
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President: 1. The facts of the case are that the Decree Holder/Complainant filed an execution application against the Judgment Debtor Delhi Development Authority, which was dismissed in default vide order dated 30.7.2009. The Decree Holder applied for its restoration along with which he also filed an application for condonation of delay. In delay condonation application, he made prayer for restoration of execution petition, apparently inadvertent mistake on the part of the decree holder. The District Forum vide order dated 26.8.2010, rejected the application for condonation of delay, in consequence whereof also restoration application, saying that in delay application, prayer is made as appeal for restoration of the case, and there is no appeal, the appeal of the condonation of delay is rejected. 2. The Decree Holder thereafter filed a fresh execution, which the District Forum dismissed vide order dated 11.5.2011. The order may be reiterated as below for easy understa...
Dr.K.K.Saini Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
1. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that till the year 1978 the hierarchical structure of the medical cadre in Central Police Reserve Force (herein after referred to as „CRPF) was as follows: - Chief Medical Officer I Senior Medical Officer I General Duty Medical Officer (Grade I) I General Duty Officer (Grade II) I Junior Medical Officer 2. The petitioner joined CRPF as a Junior Medical Officer in the year 1972 and earned promotions from time to time. 3. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by CRPF for direct recruitment to the post of Senior Medical Officer, the petitioner applied and was selected and hence appointed as a Senior Medical Officer. In due course of time he earned promotion to the post of Chief Medical Officer. 4. In the year 1978 the Central Government created a single post of Medical Superintendent in the scale of pay `1500-2000/- in the medical cadre of CRPF, which post was equivalent in rank to the post of...
Uoi Vs. Jai Chand and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
1. This is an appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 for setting aside the judgment dated 30-07-2008 given by the learned Additional District Judge in LAC No. 136/1/2008 whereby while giving enhancement in compensation to the respondents for their acquired land in village Dallupura the Reference Court had awarded interest on the enhanced amount even for the period from the date of dismissal in default of the Reference case till the date of its restoration and the Government is aggrieved only by the grant of interest for that period. 2. The facts which only are relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that at the instance of the respondents - land owners, the Land Acquisition Collector had made a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 since they were not satisfied with the compensation fixed by him in respect of their lands which had been acquired. The Government contested the reference and after considering the evidence adduced during the tr...
Suresh Kalmadi Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
1. The petitioner, a Parliamentarian in judicial custody has filed this writ petition seeking direction for permission to attend the Parliament while remaining in judicial custody. It is inter alia the case of the petitioner that he has received summons dated 14th July, 2011 summoning him to attend the 8th Session of the 15th Lok Sabha commencing from 1st August, 2011; that on enquiry, he has been informed that a Member who is in prison in connection with any criminal case can be permitted by the competent Court to attend day-to-day proceedings of the Lok Sabha; that the bail application filed by him has been rejected vide order dated 6th June, 2011; that though he made an application before the Special Judge before whom he is being prosecuted for offences under Sections 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 but the same was withdrawn with permission to a...
Uoi Vs. Pratap Singh and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
1. This is an appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 for setting aside the judgment dated 30-07-2008 given by the learned Additional District Judge in LAC No. 135/1/2008 whereby while giving enhancement in compensation to the respondents for their land acquired in village Gharoli the Reference Court had awarded interest on the enhanced amount even for the period from the date of dismissal in default of the Reference case till the date of its restoration and the Government is aggrieved only by the grant of interest for that period. 2. The facts which only are relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that at the instance of the respondents - land owners, the Land Acquisition Collector had made a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 since they were not satisfied with the compensation fixed by him in respect of their lands which had been acquired. The Government contested the reference and after considering the evidence adduced during the tria...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »