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.
General Manager, Haryana Roadways and anr. Vs. Savitri Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-2011
1. By this common judgment, it is proposed to decide both the aforesaid appeals as common questions of fact and law are involved in both the appeals. 2. The concise facts leading to the filing of the appeals are that on 11.07.2005 one Naresh Kumar met with a road accident while crossing the road at the Gopalpur Wazirabad Crossing, Outer Ring Road, Delhi, when he was hit by a Haryana Roadways bus bearing No.HR-62-0359 being driven at a high speed, rashly and negligently, and in complete violation of the traffic rules. On account of the forceful impact, the said Naresh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") fell at some distance on the road and sustained fatal injuries. A criminal case bearing FIR No.341/2005 under Sections 279/304A IPC was registered at Police Station Timarpur against the driver of the offending bus on the statement of an eye-witness, Head Constable Ramphal. A suit bearing No.294/06 claiming compensation in the sum of ` 25 lakhs for the untimely demise of the...
Roop Trading Company Vs. the Registrar of Trade Marks New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-2011
1. This writ petition was filed with the grievance that the respondent inspite of acceptance of petitioner's application for registration six years ago is not advertising the same in the Trade Marks Journal and seeking mandamus to the respondent to advertise/publish the petitioner's Trade Mark application in the Trade Marks Journal. 2. Notice of the petition was issued. 3. The petitioner has now filed CM No.12413/2011 averring that the respondent has issued a notice dated 2nd August, 2011 to the petitioner under Section 19 of the Trade Mark Act r/w Rule 42 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002 to show cause as to why the acceptance order should not be withdrawn, having been erroneously issued and calling the petitioner for hearing on 2nd September, 2011; the petitioner seeks stay of the proceedings in pursuance to the said notice to show cause. 4. It is not in dispute that the respondent has a power to withdraw the acceptance order. The counsel for the petitioner however contends that such po...
Abhishek JaIn Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-2011
Almost five decades back Nobel laureate Samuel Beckett in his play "Waiting for Godot" through a character stated that in the immense confusion, one thing alone was clear that they were waiting for Godot. In the case at hand one thing that gets frescoed and projected to the surface is that the petitioner who has preferred this public interest litigation is embedded to play with words and usher in a sense of contradiction, irreconciliability and dichotomy. One may, in a different sphere of life, pronounce with heroics that he contradicts himself every moment and, therefore, he grows but, a significant one, the same has no allowance in the field of law. The pleadings, assertions, asseverations and the prayer sought in a writ petition, especially in a public interest litigation has to be clear, manifest, purposefully demonstrable and luculent making out a case that is relevant to public interest. In the case at hand, the petitioner in paragraphs 26, 28, 29, 30 and 31 has pleaded thus: - "...
K.S.R. Chari Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-2011
1. The Petitioner, who is 91 years old, has approached this Court seeking directions to the Government of India („GoI) in the Ministry of Coal and Mines („MoCM) (Respondent No. 1), Coal India Limited (`CIL) (Respondent No. 2), and the Central Coalfields Ltd. (`CCL) (Respondent No. 3) to provide him the benefits of the Railway Pension and Family Pension Scheme („RP/FPS) with retrospective effect from 1st December 1977, the date of his retirement, and also pay interest on the arrears of pension. The Petitioner also challenges a decision dated 24th October 1998 of the CIL rejecting the Petitioners application seeking to opt for the liberalized pension and Family Pension Scheme (`FPS) as well as the decision dated 5th August 2004 of the MoCM rejecting a similar request. 2. The Petitioner joined the State Railways Coal Department on 14th January 1942. At that time, the Railways had no pension scheme. There was only a State Railways Provident Fund („SRPF) Scheme. Cons...
Shakun Ahuja Vs. the Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors. Through:chief Secr ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2011
Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J): 1. This RA has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 08.08.2011, whereby the OA was dismissed. It has been mentioned in the RA that this Tribunal has wrongly recorded that Smt. Versha Rani was working on part time basis w.e.f. 4.11.1986, whereas the applicant was engaged in August 1996. In fact, the applicant was appointed as per the rules through Employment Exchange on 20.08.1996, whereas Smt. Varsha Rani was engaged and not appointed. It is further stated that the applicant was also appointed on part time basis as that of Versha Rani and according to the review applicant this Tribunal has not correctly decided the OA. 2. As can be seen from paras 5-11 of the judgment this Tribunal has declined the relief of regularization to applicant on the ground that she is not entitled for regularization in terms of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi, JT ...
Vijay Kumar Vs. Uoi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2011
1. This is the second round of litigation being fought. The first was fought when WP(C) No.7115/2002 filed by petitioner was decided in his favour by a Division Bench of this Court on 27.8.2008. 2. At the earlier round of litigation, 3 grievances raised by the petitioner were considered. First was his not being treated to be on duty when he was undergoing training, as an essential part of the diploma course undertaken by the petitioner in pharmacy, from M.S.Ramaiah College of Pharmacy. The second was of expenses incurred by him while completing the Pharmacy course not being refunded to him; and lastly his issue with respect to 6 persons, viz., Sher Singh, Gautam Ram Saukata, Ram Singh, Manohar Singh, Raghubir Singh Taulia and Kishan Singh being promoted as SI (Pharmacist) and petitioner being denied said benefit. Petitioner claimed that benefit accorded to said 6 persons needs to be extended to him. 3. The petition filed by the petitioner succeeded with directions being issued requirin...
Deep Chand Vs. Dda and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2011
1. The petitioner was a registrant for an LIG Flat under the New Pattern Housing Scheme 1979 of the respondent DDA. He was in the year 1991 allotted a flat at Dilshad Garden. It is the case of the petitioner that the Demand-cum-Allotment Letter of the said flat was sent by the respondent DDA at the wrong address and was never received by the petitioner. 2. Upon representation by the petitioner in this regard in December, 1991, his case was examined and in the draw of lots held in December, 1992, he was allotted a flat at Rohini. 3. The petitioner however represented against the cost of the flat at Rohini being too exorbitant. The said representation of the petitioner was rejected and the petitioner having failed to avail of the allotment, the allotment in his favour was cancelled on 1st July, 1994. The petitioner after remaining quiet for 14 years, in the year 2008 admittedly at the behest of property brokers who had approached him to transfer his rights to them, started writing to the...
Ganga Sagar Sharma and anr. Vs. Savitri Bansal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2011
1. This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 27.02.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi in Claim Petition No.226/2004. 2. The facts may be briefly recapitulated as follow: On 20.09.2004, the respondents No.1 to 5 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the appellants claiming compensation in the sum of ` 10,00,000/- on account of the demise of the husband of the respondent No.1 and the father of the respondents No.2 to 5 in a road accident on 06.04.2004 near Hanuman Mandir Road, Shiv Ram Park, Delhi with scooter No. DL-2S-J-3250 driven by the appellant No.2 and owned by the appellant No.1. In the written statement filed by them, the appellants denied the factum of accident and involvement of the offending vehicle. All other facts alleged by the respondents No.1 to 5 were also refuted. It was submitted by the appellants that the appellant No.2 had taken the i...
Cit Vs. M/S V.R.V. Breweries and Bottling Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2011
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) by a common judgment dated 29.07.2004 has disposed of cross appeals of the assessee and revenue for assessment years 1997-1998, 1998- 1999 and 1999-2000. The said judgment of Tribunal has given rise to the three (3) captioned appeals. It is important to note that while for each of the assessment years under consideration (i.e., assessment year 1997-1998, 1998-1999 and 1999-2000) the Assessing Officer has passed orders (on the issue with which we are concerned in the captioned appeals) against the assessee, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as „CIT(A)] has taken a view in favour of the assessee in the assessment year 1998-99. Since the facts obtaining in the captioned appeals are common and the Tribunal has dealt with the cross appeals by a common judgment, we intend to dispose of the captioned appeals by a common judgment. 2. The assessee at the relevant time was in the business of manufa...
Lt.Col.Pramod Nath Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-2011
1. We have repeatedly observed that howsoever brief may be the reasons, orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal must indicate what has weighed with the Tribunal. 2. The necessity for giving reasons, howsoever brief, in a judicial order is that the Appellate or the Revisional or the Authority exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of India has the benefit of what weighed in the mind of the Fora and this helps in the administration of justice, for the reason it fast- tracks adjudication. 3. Impugned order dated 12.8.2011 reads as under- "We have heard both the sides on the interim prayer. Considering the facts of the case, without observing anything on the merits of the case, we do not consider it fit to grant interim relief. Hence, interim prayer is rejected. Put up case on 15.09.2011 at 2 pm before the same bench. Copy of order be given dasti to the applicant as prayed." 4. Why has the Tribunal held that it does not consider it fit to grant interim relief to the petitioner? No re...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »