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.
Mohd. Sadiq Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Record of inquiry perused. 3. It may be noted that when the writ petition was filed, petitioner's appeal (Annexure P-4) against the order dated 18.8.1999 dismissing him from service was still pending. Inordinate delay in deciding the appeal made the petitioner rush to this court, inasmuch as 2 other co-accused were visited with a minor penalty. Though reduced, but they were earning a salary. Petitioner was left without a penny. 4. During the pendency of the writ petition the appeal has been dismissed vide order dated 'Nil' November 1999. Petitioner has not amended the writ petition to challenge the order in appeal. 5. But, since so many years have passed by, and since the order in appeal has been filed along with the counter affidavit, we would consider its effect. 6. Petitioner, a Head Constable with CRPF, along with another Constable Ram Singh and HC Satbir Singh faced a joint inquiry. 7. 2 Articles of Charge were framed against them. The ...
M/S Jyoti Build-tech Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. M/S Mideast Pipeline Produ ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2011
1. The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act 1881, in which petitioners were impleaded as accused No.1 to accused No.5. Accused No.1 is a company registered under the Companies Act. Other accused were stated to be the Directors of accused No.1 and qua them it has been pleaded in the complaint that they are responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company and are in charge of the affairs of the company. 2. Pertaining to the cheque in question, in the sum of `4.29 lacs, dated 3.9.2003, drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Arun Vihar, Noida, U.P., it is asserted in the complaint, in para 5 thereof, as under:- 'That with respect to the installation of 700 mm dia M.S.Pipes, the Accused persons initially identified two crossings, totaling a length of approximately 130 mtr., where the 700 mm dia M.S.Pipes to be supplied by the Accused persons were to be installed. Accordingly, the Accused No.1, in presence of the other accused persons, told the Compla...
Dr.(Col.) Subhash Chandra Talwar and anr. Vs. Choithram Memorial Hospi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2011
1. Of the 2 plaintiffs only one, Dr.(Col.) S.C.Talwar (Retd.) is litigating with the respondents, i.e. the defendants. 2. The prolix plaint, competing with Sachin Tendulkar to score a century, consisting of 116 paragraphs, has rightly met its waterloo, when the learned Singe Judge held that the plaint discloses no cause of action having accrued at Delhi and thus the Delhi High Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the plaint and as a consequence the suit was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 10.9.2007 which order was corrected on review vide order dated 24.10.2007, holding that the suit would not stand dismissed but the plaint stands rejected. 3. Thus, the issue before us is whether the learned Single Judge has correctly read the plaint. 4. 2 plaintiffs joined in a common action by filing a suit alleging breach of contract, unlawful business practices, conspiracy, illegal trafficking, criminal intimidation, violation of public policy, denigration, harassment, humiliat...
Kanta Thapar Vs. Brij Nandan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2011
1. This petition is against the order dated 8.3.2011 passed by learned Rent Controller (West) whereby the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord, in respect of premises 80-B, Ekta Enclave, Peeragarhi, Delhi-110041 (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenanted premises') has been allowed and she has been ordered to vacate the tenanted premises because of her failure to seek leave to contest the eviction petition within the prescribed period of fifteen days from the date of service of summons on her through her daughter-in-law on 4th February, 2011. 2. The respondent-landlord had filed an eviction petition against the petitioner-tenant under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ('the Act' in short) on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises. On 13.01.2011 the Rent Controller ordered issuance of summons under Section 25 (3)(a) of the Act but the same was not served upon the petitioner-tenant but was delivered to her daugh...
Hem Chander Malik Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2011
1. Vide three awards as afore-noted pronounced pursuant to three notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 on 23.12.1994, 28.4.1995 and 27.10.1999, agricultural lands in village Shahbad Daulatpur were acquired for development of Rohini Phase-IV. It may be highlighted that lands for the colony Rohini were first acquired in the year 1961 and from time to time acquisitions were made as and when Rohini Phase-I, Rohini Phase-II and Rohini Phase- III were developed and colonized. The effect of what I have highlighted is that by the time subject acquisitions were effected, the surrounding lands had not only been acquired but had been fully developed and largely colonized and thus the subject lands had acquired a building potentiality. 2. When judgment was reserved in the instant appeals on 19.8.2011, arguments were advanced and decision was reserved in Appeals pertaining to acquisition of land in the adjoining village Rithala. Agricultural lands of said village Rit...
D.D.a Vs. M/S Krishna Construction Co
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2011
1. OMP No.392/2001 and OMP No.393/2001 which laid a challenge to two awards dated 27.7.2001 and 28.7.2001 were disposed of by passing a detailed judgment dated 25.1.2006 in OMP No.392/2001 and a short order passed in OMP No.393/2001. The two awards pertain to agreements No.1/EE/DD-VIII/86-97 and No.41/EE/DD-VIII/86-97. The awards were challenged qua claim No.9 by filing objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996. 2. Learned counsel for the parties conceded that both contracts were pari materia and spanned around the same time and nature of disputes were near identical, and in any case, pertaining to claim No.9 raised by the respondent, where sums awarded by the learned Arbitrator are `14,28,801/- in award dated 27.7.2001 and `15,14,800/- in award dated 28.7.2001, the legal issue which arises for consideration with respect to the challenge to the award is the same. 3. Undisputably, both contracts had a clause numbered 10CC which stipulated that price incr...
Dalmia Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi 10 and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2011
The petitioner is a company and for the assessment year 2003- 2004 had filed its return of income tax declaring loss of Rs.29,68,536/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny and vide assessment order dated 27th March, 2006, the total income of the petitioner was assessed at a positive figure of Rs.2,19,80,970/-. 2. In the balance sheet enclosed with the original return, the petitioner had shown sundry creditors at Rs. 1,66,37,402/-. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 19,86,551/- under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, „the Act) in respect of the seven parties, who had not filed confirmations out of the said sundry creditors. The relevant portion of the original assessment order is as under:- "1. Sundry Creditors : 'Sundry Creditors' have been show at Rs.1,66,37,402/-. Vide this office letter dated 14th October, 2005, the assessee company was asked to furnish complete details/confirmations with respect to the „Sundry Creditors'. Such details were ...
Rajesh Kumar Bahl Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2011
1. The issue is short. The facts have thus to be noted in brief. 2. Working as a Commissioned Officer in the Corps of Engineers of the Indian Army, petitioner was permanently seconded with the Survey of India. 3. Permanent seconding means that the petitioner was permanently absorbed under Survey of India. We highlight that being of strategic importance for the defence of the country, a fixed number of army officers are permanently seconded to Survey of India so that with respect to the defence of the nation, there is a close cooperation between the civil administration and the army authorities. 4. The confidential rolls of these officers are recorded both as per the proformas prescribed by the Indian Army and the proforma prescribed for civil servants. It be highlighted that the same officer i.e. one under whom these permanently seconded officers function act as the Reporting Officer or the Initiating Officer and the same officer functions as the Reviewing Officer pertaining to both th...
Abha Pathak Vs. Gyandeep Education Society and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2011
1. The Petitioner, who was working as an Assistant Teacher in the Gyandeep Vidya Bhawan (hereinafter „the School), Respondent No. 2 herein, challenges an order dated 27th August 1993 passed by the Managing Committee („MC) of the School removing her from service. The Petitioner has also challenged the constitution of the Disciplinary Authority („DA), the order dated 15th July 1991 placing the Petitioner under suspension, the memorandum dated 28th October 1991 by which the charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner, the memorandum dated 26th August 1992 requiring the Petitioner to respond to the enquiry report and the memorandum dated 16 th September 1992 giving the Petitioner one more opportunity to make a representation on the report of the enquiry and on the question of proposed penalty of removing her from service. 2. One of the grounds on which the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 27th August 1993 removing her from service is that there was no prior approva...
Dharam Pal and anr. Vs. Meena Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2011
1. This revision petition filed under section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ('the Act' in short) is against the order dated 18.12.2009 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller whereby an eviction order has been passed against the petitioners-tenants in respect of one shop under their tenancy on the ground floor of property no. IX-6933, Prem Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenanted shop') because of their failure to seek leave to contest the eviction petition filed against them by their landlady, respondent herein, under Section 14(1)(e) of the 'Act' within the prescribed period of fifteen days from the date of service of summons, which was by way of affixation of summons on 4.12.08 and which was considered to be good service by the learned Additional Rent Controller. 2. The respondent-landlady had filed the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act against the petitioners on 31.5.2008. On 02.06.2008 the Addit...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »