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.
Madhup Nath Jha Vs. Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2011
1. The Petitioner challenges an order dated 10th May 2000 issued by the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, Respondent No. 1, reverting him from the post of Lecturer in History to the post of Post Graduate Teacher („PGT) (History) in Respondent No. 3 Rani Padmavati Tara Yogatantra Mahavidyalaya. The Petitioner also challenges the consequential order dated 3rd July, 2000 issued by Respondent No. 3 stating that since no direction had been issued by Respondent No. 1, no salary would be paid to the Petitioner in the reverted post. 2. Respondent No. 1 is under the administrative control of the Union of India through the Ministry of Human Resources Development („HRD Ministry) Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 3 is an institution in Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh affiliated to Respondent No. 1 and is an autonomous body functioning under the administrative and financial control of Respondent No. 1. 3. The Petitioner states that he was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher („TGT) on 4th ...
Mukesh Kumar Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2011
1. The writ petition was dismissed in default on 19.8.2010. A belated application, being CM No. 11323/2011 has been filed praying that order dated 19.8.2010 be recalled and writ petition be heard on merits. 2. Vide other two civil miscellaneous applications, delay in filing and delay in refiling is prayed to be condoned, which delay is cumulative spanning 285 days. 3. On the express assurance of learned counsel for the petitioner that he would argue the writ petition today itself, we dispose of all the civil miscellaneous applications condoning the delay in filing as also the delay in refilling CM No.11323/2011 and disposing of said civil miscellaneous application by recalling the order dated 19.8.2010. W.P.(C) No.11121/2004 1. Petitioner was a Constable with Delhi Police and was posted at PS Gandhi Nagar. His request to undertake a refresher course for 40 days which had to commence on 1.9.1998 was accepted and he was relieved from duties with permission granted to join the course. Nee...
Govt. of India Press Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. Vs. D ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2011
1. The Petitioner, Government of India Press Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. („Society), challenges an order dated 11th August 1999 passed by the Labour Court allowing seven applications filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act („ID Act) claiming, inter alia, the arrears of dearness allowances („DA) from July 1988 to June 1989. 2. In the application filed under Section 33C(2) ID Act, Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 stated that each of them was employed as a Lower Division Clerk („LDC) with the Society. It was claimed that the recommendations of the First, Second, Third and Fourth Pay Commissions application to government servants were also applicable to Respondent Nos. 1 to 6. In particular, it is stated that arrears of DA from July 1988 to June 1989 have not been paid. 3. In the written statement filed in reply to the claim petition, the stand taken by the Petitioner Society, inter alia, was that the workmen had no ...
Harish Muljimal Gandhi Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2011
1. We have heard the petitioner who has appeared in person. Petitioner has stated that he was a Non Resident Indian and on 2nd October, 1997, he came from Dubai and from his baggage 319 gms gold, valued at Rs.1,46,740/-, electronic and miscellaneous goods valued at Rs.2,56,500/- and Indian currency of Rs.3,500/- were seized at the Indira Gandhi International Airport. He was prosecuted but was acquitted on 24th April, 2010. Copy of the judgment passed by the trial court has, however, not been placed on record. 2. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 8th October, 2010, to Additional Commissioner of Customs, for release of gold for re-export and demanded monetary value of electronic goods. He also asked for interest. 3. By letter dated 15th November, 2010, the Additional Commissioner of Customs, IGI, Airport, informed the petitioner that the ACMM, had acquitted him on technical grounds and an appeal has been filed against the said acquittal. On the question of return of gold, monetary valu...
Om Prakash Vs. C.B.i.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26th February 2002 and order on sentence dated 27th February, 2002 of learned Special Judge Shri R.K. Gauba whereby the Appellant Om Prakash was convicted for the offence under Section 120B IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") and Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of `500/- on each count and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of three months each. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case as set out was that Rajesh Kumar (PW2/ Complainant) made a complaint to CBI on 7th April, 1995 against the Appellant/accused. The genesis of the complaint is regarding pendency of an application made by the father of the complainant for grant of license for running a floor mill (chakki)....
Cit Vs. M/S Srf Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2011
1. The captioned reference pertains to assessment year 1989-90. The reference has been made at the behest of the Revenue for adjudication of the following questions of law: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is correct in holding that the disallowance u/s 37(3) read with Rule 6D of the Income-Tax Act/Rule should be worked out by consolidating all of the travel undertaken by each of the employee in a year. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is right in holding that the expenses in respect of rent, repair and other expenditure on the guest house which are normally allowed u/s 30, 31 of the I.T. Act could not be disallowed u/s 37(4) of the I.T. Act. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT is correct in law in holding that the credit given to the profit and loss account by the amount withdrawn from re-valuation reserve account is to be reduced." QUESTION NO. 1 2. The assessee at the relev...
B.R.S. Panwar Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2011
1. The Petitioner, who was working as an Assistant Manager (QC) with Respondent No. 1 Food Corporation of India („FCI), challenges an order dated 27th July 2001 passed by the Disciplinary Authority („DA) agreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer („IO) and imposing the penalty of recovery of Rs. 28.68 lakh from the terminal benefits of the Petitioner and dismissing him from service. 2. What stands out about the entire disciplinary proceedings is the manner in which the FCI went about conducting it. The Petitioner was to retire on 31st July 2001. The FCI appears to have waited till about two months prior thereto to initiate the proceedings in respect of certain events which took place in May 1998. One charge sheet was served on the Petitioner on 15th May 2001. Even before he could reply to the said charge sheet a second one was issued to him on 23rd July 2011 and he was asked to furnish a reply "within ten days". A copy was marked to the District Manager, FCI, His...
Babu Ram JaIn Vs. Bses Yamuna Power Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2011
For the reasons stated therein and in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in North Delhi Power Ltd. v. GNCTD, the applications are allowed. The BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. ('BYPL') is impleaded as a Respondent in place of the Delhi Vidyut Board ('DVB'), the Delhi Power Company Ltd ('DPCL') and the Delhi Vidyut Board Employees Provident Terminal Fund 2002 who were earlier impleaded are removed from the array of parties. W. P. (C) 1597/1998 1. The Petitioner, who was employed as a senior lineman with the DVB [which has since been substituted by BYPL] has filed this writ petition challenging the memorandum dated 5th March 1992 issued by the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking ('DESU') and served upon him the articles of charges on the basis of which disciplinary proceedings were initiated. The Petitioner also challenges the enquiry report dated 2nd January 1996 holding the Petitioner guilty of the charges, the show cause notice dated 5th June 1996 and the consequential order dated 2nd May...
Rajpal Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2011
1. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 3 rd February 1999 issued by Delhi Transport Corporation („DTC), the Respondent herein, fixing the pay of the Petitioner in the scale of peon. The Petitioner also challenges an order dated 25th January 2006 passed by the Labour Court dismissing the Petitioners application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 („ID Act). The third prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the DTC to pay to the Petitioner the same scale of pay and allowances as was drawn by him at the time he met with an accident, as revised from time to time and also to pay the arrears of the salary for the intervening period, i.e., from the date of the accident till the date of payment at the same rate with interest. 2. The Petitioner was appointed as a driver in the Respondent DTC on 24th December 1978 on a regular basis. While in service the Petitioner suffered medical disability. By an order dated 5th September 1991 issue...
M.C.D Vs. Bhagirath Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2011
1. The respondent workman is reported to have been served by ordinary process. None appears. The respondent workman is proceeded against ex parte. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the award dated 10th November, 2006 of the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference:- "Whether the services of Sh. Bhagirath Singh have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?" and granting the relief to the respondent workman of lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- only. Notice of the petition was issued and subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses in this Court the operation of the award stayed. The said amount is stated to have been deposited. The respondent workman as aforesaid has failed to appear inspite of service. 3. The case of the respondent workman before the Industrial Adjudicator was that he was employed with the petitioner MCD as a M...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »