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.
Mahinder Singh Chauhan and ors. Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2011
1. On 12.2.2007 applications were invited from Constables and Head Constables working in RPF for being appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspectors on the basis of a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. 745 persons submitted their applications and out of which only 482 appeared at the written examination. 2. The task of conducting the examination was assigned to a Committee headed by Sh.Rattan Chand, Senior Security Commissioner (RPF) who was to act as the convener of the committee, Sh.S.Z.Khan Divisional Security Commissioner and Sh.Laxmi Narain Assistant Security Commissioner were the two members of the committee. The paper setter was Sh.Rattan Chand. Under his supervision and guidance the papers were to be checked by Sh.S.Z.Khan and Sh.Laxmi Narain. All 3 were responsible for the written examination and it was their duty to ensure that the candidates did not indulge in any nefarious activities or did not resort to malpractices when the answer sheets were being written. The purity ...
Union of India Vs. Chitra Srinivasan Irs and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2011
1. The petitioner, Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, has challenged the order dated 31.05.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 606/2010 titled as Chitra Srinivasan IRS vs. Union of India and Ors., whereby the petitioner was directed to ignore the un-communicated ACRs of the years 2002-2003 (if considered by the DPC), 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. The petitioners were also directed to hold the review DPC to consider the respondent No. 1 for promotion by considering the ACRs of the preceding years as provided in the O.M. No. 22011/7/98-Estt.(D) dated 6.10.2000 read with O.M. No. 22011/5/66-Estt.(D) dated 20.06.1986 of the DoPT. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order on the ground that the order passed by the Tribunal impugned by the petitioner is contrary to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No. 6013/2010 titled as Union of India vs. Krishna M...
Raghuvir Singh Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2011
1. The Petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in Projects & Equipment Corporation of India Limited („PECIL) in the pay scale of Rs. 310-480 on 25th July 1979. The Petitioner was promoted to the post of officiating Executive Assistant („EA)/Junior Accountant („JA) in the pay scale of Rs. 430-950 on temporary basis. By an office order dated 18th September 1982 he was regularized in the post of EA. 2. For promotion to the next higher post of Office Manager, the incumbent should have completed seven years as EA/JA /Stenographer. However, where a candidate, like the Petitioner, belonged to the reserved category, the number of years to be completed in the feeder cadre was five years. In terms of the applicable promotion policy at that point in time, the period of ad hoc/officiating service was also to be counted for the purpose of eligibility for promotion. In the seniority list of EA/JA/Stenographer announced on 27th June 1986, the Petitioner was placed at Serial...
Sagrika Singh Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2011
1. On 01.01.1976 the Armed Forces constituted a society known as Army Group Insurance Fund (hereinafter referred to as the AGIF') and registered the same under the Societies Registration Act 1908. The principal object of the fund was to cater to the socio-economic needs of the Army Personnel and their families by providing an insurance cover. 2. In the year 1982, Army Group Insurance Fund Rules (hereinafter referred to as the AGIF Rules') were notified. The Preamble whereof reads as under:- 1. The Army Group Insurance Scheme has been approved by the Government of India for the welfare of all Army Personnel. The Army Group Insurance Fund which was constituted in consequence with effect from 1 Jan 76, was sanctioned vide Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter No.A/37586/AG/PC&JEC/9302/D/(Pay/Services) dated 15 Dec 1975, to be treated as an approved Fund for the purposes of deductions under Army Rule 205 (b) from the pay and allowances of the Army personnel, to meet compulsor...
AlimuddIn Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2011
1. In this double murder case, conviction of appellant- Alimuddin son of Amiruddin is solely based upon circumstantial evidence. Law regarding appreciation of evidence in cases purely resting upon circumstantial evidence is well known and needs no reiteration. 2. Appellant- Alimuddin along with one Kaleem @ Ikramuddin was tried on the charge of having murdered Shahbuddin and Mohd. Hanif by administering poison and of having removed their dead bodies to conceal the offence of murder committed by them on 17.3.1995. 3. Impugned judgment of 3.2.1999 holds the appellant and co-accused Kaleem @ Ikramuddin guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC as well as for the offence punishable under Section 201/34 of the IPC and vide order of 6.2.1999 they have been sentenced by the trial court to imprisonment for life with a fine of `25,000/- each and for the offence under Section 201/34 of the IPC, the sentence imposed upon them is of rigorous imprisonment for 5 yea...
Mod Creations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2011
1. The learned counsels for both parties agree that the appeal can be admitted and heard on the basis of the pleadings and material on record. 2. Admit. 2.1. The only question of law which arises for our adjudication is as follows: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘ITAT) was justified in sustaining `8,24,000.00 on account of unexplained cash credit under the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IT Act)?" 3. In the captioned appeal, we are concerned with the Assessment Year 2002-2003. The assessee has filed this appeal as it is aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.4.2007 passed by the ITAT. As indicated hereinabove the only issue which arises for our consideration is as to whether the ITAT erred, in the given facts & circumstances of the case in sustaining the addition of sum of `8,24,000.00 in the income of the assessee. 4. In order to decide the afore...
Ganesh Pershad Seth and anr. Vs. Ndmc and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2011
1. Since we are concurring with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge, we reflect upon the same arguments which were advanced before the learned Single Judge as they were the ones which were repeated before us, and state our reasons for agreeing with the learned Single Judge. 2. Appellant No.1, the Karta of appellant No.2, is the son of respondent No.3. Respondent No.2 is his sister. Respondent No.4 is a company floated by respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 as also the father of respondent No.2, being the husband of respondent No.3. 3. The dispute pertains to property No.85-A, Punchkuian Road, New Delhi. 4. Appellant No.1 litigated with his parents and sister with respect to the family properties, which included property bearing No.85-A, Punchkuian Road, New Delhi. Suit No.732/1983 filed by him resulted in a compromise decree dated 2.4.1984 wherein appellant No.1 was allotted 1/3rd share therein i.e. 33% and 67% was assigned to his parents and sister. The decree divided the proper...
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited Vs. Simplex Infrastructures Limit ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2011
1. The present three Appeals raise a common issue and are, consequently, being disposed of by this common order. 2. The brief facts giving rise to FAO(OS) No.674/2010 are as follows:- (a) A contract was entered into between the parties on 28th December, 2000 for construction of a depot and workshop at Shastri Park, Delhi. (b) The salient features of the said contract dated 28th December, 2000 prescribed `61,87,53,692/- as the total contract price for execution and completion of the work and for remedying the defects therein. The stipulated date for completion of the work was 1st November, 2002. (c) Thereafter the work was finally completed by the Respondent/Claimant on 29th January, 2006. (d) Subsequently, disputes arose between the parties for the reason that at the time of making the final payment to the Respondent/Claimant an amount of `57,19,257/- was deducted by the Appellant/Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) towards labour cess and an amount to the tune of `4,08,074/- was accor...
Siel Ltd. Vs. the Lt. Governor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2011
1. Shriram Foods and Fertilizer Industries, formerly known as M/s. DCM Chemical Works, a unit of M/s. DCM Ltd. (formerly known as Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd.), filed this writ petition challenging the orders dated 30th January 1984, 14th March 1984, 28th March 1984, 31st March 1984 and 2nd December 1983 passed by the Labour Court-I, in ID No. 81 of 1971 and the Award dated 2nd April 1984. The Petitioner has since been substituted by SIEL Ltd. 2. This Court has heard Ms. Raavi Birbal, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, and having perused the impugned order and the record. 3. The dispute referred to the Labour Court in ID No. 81 of 1971 was the legality of the dismissal of the workman, Mr. Ved Prakash Gupta [since deceased and substituted by his legal representatives (LRs)] and the relief to which he was entitled. The workman filed a statement of claim stating that he was employed by the management of M/s DCM Chemical Works on 11th June 1954 drawing a salary of Rs. 305 pe...
State Vs. Narender @ Bholu and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2011
1. The State by the present petition seeks leave to appeal against a judgment and order of the learned ASJ dated 17.02.2004 in State v. Dhananjay & Others. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court convicted one of the six accused and acquitted others (who are respondents in this petition). 2. The prosecution allegations were that on 18.04.2001, one Sunil, who used to work with a gas agency - M/s. Gemini Enterprises, was entrusted with Rs. 75,000/- by his employers. He apparently took it and was riding a bicycle. The prosecution alleged that the accused/Respondents as well as the convicted accused (Dhananjay) went alongside Sunil and fired a bullet at him. The further allegation was that money was robbed. The prosecution sought to implicate the accused on the alleged confessional statements made by the Respondents Narender @ Bholu and Parveen, who were arrested along with Dhananjay on 22.04.2001 in connection with another case at Rohtak. The prosecution further alleged that some re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »