Delhi Court September 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.
Dr. Rajendra P. Mishra and ors. Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2011
CM No. 13397/2011 in W.P.(C) No.10577/2009 This is an application seeking correction of a typographical error regarding the date of the order/judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal as given in the writ petition. Issue notice to the non-applicants. Mr. R.V. Sinha, Advocate for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Gagan Mathur, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 accept notice and state that no replies to the application are to be filed. The applicant has contended that due to inadvertence, the date of the Tribunal's order has been mentioned as 17th April, 2009 instead of 2nd April, 2009. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the petitioners/applicants are permitted to amend the date of the order as given in the petition, from 17th April, 2009 to 2nd April, 2009. The application is disposed of. CM Nos. 13413/11, 9870/10, 9404/09 & WP(C) No. 10577/09 After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, seeks to withdraw the writ pet...
Varun Kumar and ors. Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2011
The learned counsel for the petitioners, after some arguments, on instructions, seeks to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file an Original Application to agitate their claims that they are eligible and entitled to appear for the Limited Competition Examination for the post of Sub Divisional Engineer under 33% quota for which the examination is to be held and all other consequential reliefs. The examination in question is yet to be held by the respondents and this aspect of the matter was not directly in issue in OA No. 2854/2009 and had also not been adjudicated to this extent. Under the circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty as prayed for. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for....
Arc Distribution Tableware Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Designated Authority ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2011
1. We have heard Mr. Sai Krishna, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 3 and Mr. Rajesh Katyal for respondent No. 1. Mr. Sandeep Sethi has placed before us the final findings/notification dated 25th August, 2011 issued by the Designated Authority. The said notification has not been made subject matter of challenge in the present writ proceedings. It is admitted before us that now the matter is pending before the competent authority, Union of India and after decision is taken, the order can be challenged before the Tribunal. 2. Mr. Sandeep Sethi also drawn our attention to order dated 8th September, 2011 passed in WP(C) No. 5849/2011, Kodak (China PR) Graphic Communications Co. Ltd and Anr. v. The Designated Authority and Anr., wherein we had passed the following order: "3. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, Mr. Sachin Datta, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India after obtaining instructions from ...
M/S Anush Finlease and Constrtuction Pvt. Ltd and anr. Vs. Delhi Pollu ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2011
1. The petitioner in each case, seeks refund of the amount deposited with the respondent and the bank guarantees furnished to the respondent (which have not been involved and the term whereof has expired) in pursuance to the orders of the respondent requiring the same as a condition for grant of "consent to establish" to the petitioner. Similar orders of the respondent were subject matter of challenge in Splendor Landbase Ltd. v. DPCC 173 (2010) DLT 52 and were struck down. Subsequently, the same issued was raised in W.P.(C) No.465/2011 and W.P.(C) No.1041/2011 decided by the judgment dated 12th July, 2011 in which direction for refund and for return of bank guarantees was also made. The controversy in the present petitions is admittedly the same as dealt with in the judgment dated 12th July, 2011 (supra). 2. The counsel for the respondent appearing on advance notice informs that the intra court appeals against all the judgments have been admitted. It is also stated that in intra court...
Pratap Singh Vs. Northern Railway
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2011
1. The petitioner Pratap Singh, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the Award dated 24th August, 2006, whereby the action of the respondent, Northern Railway, terminating the petitioners service was upheld. 2. The petitioner had been working as a clerk under Signal Inspector (D) Laskar of Moradabad division of the respondent since 25th December, 1986. One Ram Prakash, who was working as Khalasi in the said division, wanted to take a loan. He therefore gave a loan form to the petitioner for filing it up, and for verifying the service particulars. The petitioner allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 50 from Ram Prakash for filling up and forwarding that loan form. Ram Prakash reported the matter to the CBI, following which the CBI laid a trap on 3 rd October, 1988. On that day, Ram Prakash gave the bribe money to the petitioner and then gave a signal to the CBI party. The CBI party then raided and recovered the b...
Laloo Yadav Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2011
1. Aggrieved by the order of termination from service by the Respondent-Navodya Vidyalaya Samiti invoking Clause 2 of the appointment letter, the Petitioner had filed application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The said O.A. has been dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 14th November, 2000 and this Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the said judgment is assailed. 2. During the pendency of this Writ Petition, Petitioner had passed away and his LRs were brought on record. Further, at the time of arguments in the case, nobody appeared on behalf of any of the parties. 3. The Petitioner was removed from service by the Respondent No.2 w.e.f. 11.2.1999. The Petitioner was appointed as PGT (Biology) on probation for a period of two years which was stipulated in the appointment letter dated 12.09.1996:- "2. You will be on probation for a period ...
G.C.Bhatt Vs. Uoi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2011
1. Having completed 20 years' service, petitioner sought voluntary retirement. He claims not to have received any reply and on the plea that if within 3 months of his submitting application for being voluntarily retired the same was not rejected, he would be deemed to have retired. Instant petition came to be filed alleging that after he was formally released post acceptance of his application for being voluntarily retired, to the shock of his life, petitioner received a memo under Rule 9 of the CCS Pension Rules alleging misconduct of accepting illegal gratification in sum of `1,30,000/- to secure recruitment to a civilian and taking `70,000/- from his security aide and not returning the same. 2. Pleading grounds in the writ petition which relate to petitioner's entitlement to be voluntarily retired, which we note are nothing but an intention to mislead the Court, petitioner claims that inquiry cannot be held against him. 3. For the benefit of the petitioner we may note Rule 9 of the ...
Shri Radha Kishan Aggarwal and ors. Vs. M/S. Network Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2011
1. Initially this suit was filed for recovery of Rs.42,58,768/- as also for recovery of possession of the premises comprising basement, mezzanine floor , first floor and second floor and mumty of property No.D-2, Local Shopping Centre-II, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. The abovereferred property was let out by the plaintiffs and late Shri Sitaram Agarwal to the defendant No.1 for a period of nine years, vide registered lease deed dated 02.05.1989. The lease commenced from 01.05.1989 and expired on 30.04.1998. The initial agreed rent stipulated in the lease deed was Rs.60,000/- per month which was to be increased by 15% after every three years. On account of the aforesaid increase, the agreed rent was Rs.79,350/- per month when the lease expired by afflux of time on 30.04.1998. In the suit, the plaintiffs had claimed a sum of Rs.28,56,600/- towards arrears of rent for the period from 01.05.1995 to 30.04.1998, Rs.7,52,168/- towards interest on arrears of rent, calculated at the rate of 18% per...
Rumal Shah Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2011
1. Eye witness account stated before the Court by Chandrika Prashad PW-4 is conceded to by learned counsel for the parties as a true account of what happened on 30.10.1996 at around 6:00 PM which caused the death of Jasrathi, wife of the appellant and mother of co-accused Anwar Shah, who faced a trial at a Juvenile Court since he was a juvenile when the offence was committed. 2. We thus note, in brief, testimony of Chandrika Prashad PW-4 who stated that he knew Rumal Shah i.e. the appellant since last 14 years, being neighbours. Rumal Shah was married to Jasrathi and had 5/6 children born to her and for the last 3/4 years Jasrathi used to quarrel with Rumal Shah, alleging his having an affair with a lady Ram Kali who lived in the vicinity. Since Rumal Shah persisted with his relationship with Ram Kali, Jasrathi left Rumal Shah and went to her village but returned on 2.10.1996. On the day of the incident i.e. 3.10.1996 at about 6:00 PM he saw Jasrathi unlock the shop belonging to Rumal ...
Ram Pal Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2011
1. The Petitioner was initially appointed as Loco Cleaner in the Northern Railway and was thereafter promoted as Foreman Grade-III w.e.f. 21.8.1976. Further promotions are to the post of Shunter and Driver respectively. The Petitioner has been promoted to these posts as well. However, these promotions were from earlier dates than the dates from which these promotions were granted to the posts by the Respondent. The dispute qua the dates had arisen in the following backdrop. 2. When the Petitioner was working as Foreman Grade-A he was served with a Memo of Charge for major penalty proceedings and enquiry was held which resulted in imposition of punishment of removal from service vide order dated 20.01.1986. Challenging that order, the Petitioner preferred O.A.1669/87 before the Principle Bench, CAT, New Delhi. This O.A. was allowed by the learned Tribunal inter alia on the ground that the Appellate Authority while confirming the penalty had not passed a reasoned order based on the mater...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »