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.
Baljinder Singh Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
1. With the consent of parties the writ petition is being disposed of passing consent directions. 2. Pending initiation of disciplinary inquiry, vide order dated 14.12.2009 petitioner has been suspended. The suspension has been continued from time to time and there is a dispute whether the continuation of the suspension is as per law. 3. Charge sheet has been served upon the petitioner and the inquiry officer is in the process of completing the inquiry. 4. Challenging his suspension and the continuation thereof, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before Gauhati High Court and during the pendency of the same he filed a writ petition in this Court which was dismissed on 28.4.2011 when it was brought to the notice that on the same cause a writ petition was pending in the Gauhati High Court. For unexplainable reasons, the petitioner has withdrawn the writ petition filed before the Gauhati High Court. Instant petition has been filed challenging the continued suspension of the petition...
Hari Prasad Raturi and anr. Vs. the Director General, Itbp
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
1. At the time when the writ petition was filed the petitioners were working as Sub-Inspector (Education) and raised a grievance of not being promoted as Subedar (Education) in spite of having qualified at the departmental examination conducted in the year 1993 at which 13 Sub-Inspectors qualified, but only 6 were promoted. It is the further grievance of petitioner No.2 that he having qualified at the examination conducted in the year 1995 was wrongly denied a promotion on account of the select panel being drawn up with reference to the seniority as Sub Inspector and not on the basis of merit. 2. No examination being conducted in the year 1994, at the examination conducted in the year 1995, 9 candidates were declared qualified. 4 out of the said 9, being respondents No.3 to 6 had failed at the examination conducted in the year 1993 but they cleared the examination conducted in the year 1995 and being senior to petitioner No.2 were promoted. 3. Said respondents i.e. respondent No.3 to r...
State Vs. Rafat Ahmed @ Sahil @ Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
1. The State seeks leave to appeal against a judgment and order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge dated 30.09.2010, acquitting the respondent of the charge of having committed offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 2. The prosecution's allegations were that the respondent had inflicted knife injuries upon one Jang Bahadur Yadav and fled from the spot. The latter was found in a critically injured condition at Loha Mandi, opposite Bentex. Information about the incident was recorded through a D.D. entry 32A (Ex.PW-7/A) at 10.30 PM. The injured Jang Bahadur Yadav, (whose identity was ascertained after his Identity Card was recovered from his personal effects by the police), was taken to the DDU Hospital, where he breathed his last. The doctor, who examined the deceased, did not record any statement. The injured - Jang Bahadur Yadav apparently stated that he was attacked by some unknown assailants. A First Information Report (FIR), namely 133/2009 (Ex. PW-8/A) was initially registered ...
Vivekanand Jha Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
1. The Petitioner seeks a direction to the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, Respondent No. 2, and the Union of India in the Ministry of Human Resource and Development (`HRD Ministry'), Respondent No. 1, to sanction the post of lecturer in Sociology in Rani Padmavati Tarayogtantra Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Indrapur (Shivpur), Varanasi (UP), Respondent No. 3, and absorb the Petitioner as lecturer in Sociology in Respondent No. 3 with effect from 29th October 1998, the date on which certain other posts in Respondent No. 3 were sanctioned and lecturers absorbed. 2. The Petitioner also challenges the Report of the Expert Committee (`EC') dated 15th April 1997 to the extent of non-inclusion of the Petitioner's name for such absorption. He further seeks a declaration that the office order dated 17th November 1998 issued by Respondent No. 2 declining the sanctioning of the post of lecturer in Sociology was illegal. 3. The case of the Petitioner is that he had applied for the post of lecturer ...
S.Gopinathan Nair Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
1. Petitioner's services with the respondents is with a checkered history. 2. Joining service under CRPF as a Sub Inspector the petitioner joined service on 25.5.1971 and there was no blemish in his career till FIR No.207/1984 was registered for offences punishable under Section 409, 420, 467/471 of IPC. 3. For the same alleged acts, initiating disciplinary proceedings, a charge sheet was served upon the petitioner on 1.3.1989. 4. At the inquiry, he was substantially found not guilty but was indicted for having committed technical procedural wrongs and as a result penalty of dismissal from service was inflicted upon the petitioner vide order dated 17.4.1991. 5. The petitioner challenged the penalty by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala and the same was allowed on 19.11.1998. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service, but without any back wages. 6. The Court noted that the indictment against the petitioner was not of a serious nature and no loss had res...
Ex.Const. Mukesh Kumar Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
1. A departmental inquiry against the petitioner, a Constable enrolled with CISF, culminated in infliction of penalty of compulsory retirement with pensionary benefits, which is being assailed herein, primarily on the ground of perversity. 2. The twin charges against the petitioner were:(i) of illegally allowing Vivek Konoor, Sales Manager of Hoerbiger India Pvt. Ltd., to take away his laptop after accepting bribe of `100/- on 24.02.2009 at about 17:00 hours while the petitioner was on duty at the main gate of Indian Oil Corporation, Panipat and (ii) of overstaying leave. 3. We may note that though listed as charge No.(ii), the second charge was by way of information to the petitioner that his past conduct of availing leave would be considered by the department. And for which, we find that penalties have been levied upon the petitioner in the past. 4. In a nutshell, the prosecution sought to prove the case that being on duty at the main gate of Indian Oil Corporation Complex at Panipat...
Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Uoi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
1. Appointed as an Asstt.Commandant under BSF in the year 1984 the petitioner earned a promotion as Deputy Commandant in the year 1989 and needless to state each year ACRs were written as per the procedure prescribed. 2. For the year 1993-94 the Initiating Officer i.e. the Commandant of the battalion Sh.G.S.Shekhawat penned an adverse remark in the confidential roll which was conveyed to the petitioner under cover of a letter dated 13.8.1993 with an opportunity given to the petitioner to respond there- against. The petitioner submitted his representation which was rejected vide order dated 15.5.1996 and against the rejection the petitioner preferred a representation to the President of India which was rejected vide order dated 13.11.1997. 3. The adverse remark conveyed to the petitioner, being the portions underlined, reads as under:- "An officer of middle structure whose physical appearance of an average standard. His Physical fitness could be stated as just satisfactory since he avoi...
Ranutrol Industries Tld. Vs. Bahadur Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
1. The report of the notice of CM Nos.10897-98/2010 issued to the respondent no.1 workman is still awaited. 2. The writ petition has been filed impugning the award dated 14 th February, 2005 of the Industrial Adjudicator holding the petitioner employer to have illegally and unjustifiably terminated the services of the respondent no.1 workman and directing the petitioner employer to reinstate the respondent no.1 workman with full back wages and continuity of service. 3. Notice of the petition was issued and vide order dated 24 th February, 2008, subject to the petitioner employer depositing the entire awarded amount in this Court, the operation of the award was stayed. The counsel for the petitioner employer states that in pursuance to the said order a sum of `1,30,000/- was deposited in the Court. 4. The respondent no.1 workman applied under Section 17B. On 17th July, 2009 the petitioner employer offered to reinstate the respondent no.1 workman without prejudice to the rights and conte...
Kanhaya Lal Madan Vs. N.D.M.C. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
1. By the impugned decision dated 4th April, 2011, learned single Judge has dismissed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1862/2011 and given liberty to the appellant to sue for refund of money. Learned single Judge has further clarified that observations made in the decision were only to deal with the contention of the appellant on the question of maintainability of the writ petition and would not affect the claim/proceedings which may be instituted by the appellant for refund of money. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we are entirely in agreement with the finding recorded in the impugned decision. Learned single Judge has refused to exercise discretion and entertain the writ petition for refund of money, which has been deposited/paid towards misuse/damages to the respondent NDMC. Learned single Judge has noticed that the appellant had unequivocally and unconditionally deposited part payment towards misuse/damages with the NDMC on 13th April, 2009. By another letter of the...
Master Vaibhav Bhardwaj Vs. Ggsiu and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2011
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to direct the respondent university to comply with the eligibility norms for B.Tech course as laid down by the AICTE. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present petition are that the petitioner appeared for the Common Entrance Test (CET) 2011 for the course of B.Tech from the respondent university. The petitioner scored 54% marks in the aggregate of three subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Maths (PCM) in class 12 th CBSE whereas the minimum percentage required in PCM for the B.Tech course in the respondent University is 55%. The grievance raised by the petitioner herein is that the as per the norms laid down by the AICTE, minimum percentage in PCM required for B.Tech is 50% and the respondent cannot flout the same and fix its own qualifying criteria. 3. Arguing the present petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the University has to necessarily f...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »