Delhi Court August 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
M/S Aar Bee Exports Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2011
1. The petition impugns the order dated 4th December, 2007 of the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 2. This writ petition has been preferred after nearly four years of the order. The petitioner has in para 47 of the petition referred to the order dated 4th December, 2007; thereafter in para 48, without stating that the order was not received by the petitioner, it is stated that on 7 th January, 2008, the petitioner had requested the Appellate Authority to send all communications at the address of the Advocate; a perusal of the letter dated 7th January, 2008 does not show that the petitioner / its Advocate had by the said letter asked for the order to be sent at the address given therein; rather it is the case of the petitioner in paras 45 & 46 of the petition that hearing was granted by the Appellate Authority on 4th July, 2007, 27th August, 2007 and 15th October, 2007. The letter dated 7th January, 2008 even if believed...
Modipon Limited Vs. M/S. Singhal Transport Corpn.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2011
1. The present Appeal assails the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.1.2011 passed in IA No.1502/2009 in CS(OS) No.940/1009 granting the Appellant conditional leave to defend the Suit, subject to deposit of the Suit amount of ` 95,08,324/- with the UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi. 2. The Suit filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff is one for recovery of money under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC for short). It is not disputed by the Appellant/Defendant that the Respondent/Plaintiff invested a sum of ` 70,00,000/- in the Fixed Deposit Scheme of Modipan Limited. As against this investment, twelve Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) were issued to the Respondent/Plaintiff each mentioning an interest of fourteen per cent per annum. These facts are not disputed. 3. The cause of action is stated to have arisen when the Appellant/Defendant failed to pay interest with effect from 2006/2007. It was then, by letter dated 18.8.2008, that the Plaintiff/Respondent ...
Rajesh Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2011
1. By the present Revision Petition, the Petitioner seeks setting aside of the judgment dated 28th February, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. By the impugned judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the judgment dated 17th August, 2011 passed by the learned ACMM convicting the Petitioner and order on sentence dated 20th August, 2010 whereby the Petitioner was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 304A IPC, in default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for offence punishable under Section 279 IPC, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. 2. Briefly the prosecution's case is that on 2nd April, 2000 at about 9.00 p.m. at Purana Najafgarh Road, Harizan ...
Gtl Limited Vs. Ifci Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2011
1. By this order I propose to decide the interim application being IA No.11586/2011 under Order 39 R 1 and 2 CPC seeking inter alia various reliefs including restraining the defendants No.1 and 2 and their agents and servants in any manner dealing with, disposing of, selling, alienating for sale or creating any third party rights and parting with shares of the suit property by passing the injunction orders. 2. The plaintiff has also filed another application under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC seeking relief to grant leave to the plaintiff to file suit for damages against the defendants. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 12th July, 2010, Facility Agreement was entered into between defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 whereby defendant No.1 advanced a loan of Rs.250 crores against various securities to the defendant No.3. One of the securities is a pledge of shares of the plaintiff which were to be kept in non-disposal escrow account. The other securities are hypothecation of movable propert...
Amardip Singh Jadeja Vs. Railway Board and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2011
1. The question of law which arises for consideration in the instant writ petition relates to the interpretation of Rule 65 of the Railway Protection Force Rules 1987. It reads as under:- "65. Examination on conclusion of course at any training institution of the Force: 65.1 At the conclusion of each course at any training institution of the Force, the final examination shall be conducted by a Board of Examiners which shall be nominated by - (a) the Director-General in case of training courses for Sub-Inspectors and above, and (b) the Chief Security Commissioner concerned in case of training courses for other members of the Force. 65.2 Pass marks: In order to pass the examination, the candidates would be required to obtain a minimum of 50 per cent marks in each subject and 60 per cent marks in the aggregate. 65.3 Second attempt: Any candidate who fails - (i) in one subject by a maximum of 10 marks, or (ii) in two subjects by a maximum of 5 marks in each subject, or (iii) in any course ...
Preet Singh Vs. State of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2011
1. The informant/complainant has preferred an appeal under Section 372, Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order of the Learned Sessions Judge, dated 30.09.2010 in SC No. 102/2008 acquitting the respondents of the charge framed against them, for having committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 IPC. 2. The prosecution case is that on 07.04.2008 DD No.17A was recorded at about 02:35 PM on receipt of information that Manju (the deceased) was admitted in Ayushman Hospital, Dwarka with a history of electrocution; Manju was in a serious condition. On receipt of DD No. 17A, SI Rajnish (PW-16) reached the hospital but the patient was declared unfit to record a statement. The DD (complaint) was kept pending as no eye-witnesses were found at the deceased's house or the hospital. On 09.04.2008 Manju died and DD No. 50B was recorded to this effect and Executive Magistrate Najafgarh (PW-1) was informed. On 10.04.2008 the Executive Magistrate recorded the statement...
M. P. Singh and ors. Vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2011
1. These writ petitions by former employees of the Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. („VSNL), which is Respondent No. 1 in some of the writ petitions, raise an interesting question of law as to the maintainability of the very petitions. The plea of VSNL, which is now renamed as „Tata Communications Ltd. („TCL), is that after disinvestment the shareholding of the central government in VSNL came down to 26.12%, and since it no longer performs a public function or discharges a public duty a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable against it. 2. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. T.N. Razdan and Dr. K.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned Senior counsel for the TCL and Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India. 3. Each of the Petitioners, appointed in VSNL prior to disinvestment, was sought to be terminated more than two years after the disinvestment had taken plac...
M/S J.M. International Vs. Uoi and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2011
1. The petitioner was granted a Registration Certificate under Section 11 of the Emigration Act, 1983 to carry on the business of recruitment of persons for overseas employment. The term of the said certificate was till 4th July, 2010. The petitioner, if desirous of renewal of the said certificate, was under the first proviso of Section 13 of the Act required to make an application therefor not less than three months prior to the date on which the certificate but for such renewal would cease to be valid. The petitioner was as such required to apply for renewal latest by 4 th April, 2010. The petitioner however applied for renewal on 29th May, 2010 i.e. after a delay of 54 days. The application of the petitioner was rejected by the Registering Authority vide order dated 13th July, 2010 for the reason of having not been preferred within time. 2. The second proviso to Section 13 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to entertain application for renewal made at any time during the ...
Dr.B.K.Sahoo Vs. Uoi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Prayers made in the writ petition are as under:- "(i) direct the respondents to produce the entire record of the case in hand for perusal of your lordships including the ACRs of the petitioner for the years which were considered by the DPC held in 1994, 1996 and 1997 along with the minutes of the DPCs and the decision of the authorities thereon. (ii) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate, writ order or direction quashing the adverse remarks recorded in the ACR of the petitioner for the year 1991-92. (iii) issue a writ in the nature of ‘Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents for corresponding upgadation of ACR of petitioner for the year 1991-92. (iv) issue a writ in the nature of a certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the warning issued to the petitioner by IG BSF Kashmir dt. 6 th Sep.1993. (v) issue a writ in the nature of ‘Mandamus o...
Mount Abu Education Society Vs. Anshu Sharma and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2011
1. The Petitioner, Mount Abu Education Society („Society), has filed this writ petition challenging an order dated 8th March 2011 passed by the Delhi School Tribunal („Tribunal) allowing Appeal No. 46 of 2005 filed by Respondent No. 1, Smt. Anshu Sharma, holding that the termination of her services by the Petitioner was illegal and she was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and other allowances. 2. While directing notice to issue on 1st June 2011, this Court placed on record a statement made on behalf of Respondent No. 1 that no coercive action would be taken in terms of the impugned order of the Tribunal. 3. Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher [„TGT] (Hindi) in Mount Abu Public School [„School] run by the Petitioner Society on 1st October 1994 on temporary basis in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600. In April 1996, she was promoted as a Post Graduate Teacher [„PGT] (Hindi) to conduct classes at the senior secondary level, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »