Delhi Court January 2012 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.
Sh. Rati Ram Vs. M/S. D.C.M. Shroram Consolidatd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA No.609/2003 % 5th January, 2012 SH. RATI RAM ...... Appellant Through: Mr. Rajiv Bahl, Adv. VERSUS M/S. D.C.M. SHRORAM CONSOLIDATD LTD. ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL).1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to the impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated 30.9.2002. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of advance tailoring charges which were paid to the appellant/defendant. By the impugned judgment the counter claim which was filed by the appellant/defendant was also dismissed. RFA No.609/2003 Page 1 of 9.2. The facts of the case are that parties entered into an agreement dated 30.7.1976 whereby the appellant/defendant was appointed as a tailoring contractor for executing the work as s...
Chanderwati and ors Vs. Sat NaraIn and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
UNREPORTED * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO 379/1999 CHANDERWATI and ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate versus SAT NARAIN and ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for the Insurance Company % Date of Decision : January 05, 2012 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL.1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?.3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? JUDGMENT : REVA KHETRAPAL, J..1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi dated 03.05.1999 passed in Suit No.1003/1988. FAO 379/1999 Page 1 of 17.2. The factual matrix is that on 18.08.1988 at about 7.30 p.m., one Mathura Prasad was travelling in bus bearing No.DBP 2569 going towards his residence and when the said bus reached the old Rohtak Road near Daya Basti Railway Colony Quarters, the driver of the bus applied the brakes suddenly causi...
Lt. Mrs.C.Reethama Joseph Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.4132/1999 % Date of Decision: 05.01.2012 Lt. Mrs.C.Reethama Joseph .... Petitioner Through Mr.E.J.Varghese, Advocate Versus Union of India and Ors. .... Respondents Through Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R.MIDHA ANIL KUMAR, J. *.1. The petitioner has sought the issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the order of releasing the petitioner from the Military Nursing Service on the alleged ground of her marriage and also for declaring that the Rule/Order which provides for the release of the female commissioned officers of the Military Nursing Service on the ground of their marriage as unconstitutional, invalid and void. The petitioner has also sought for directions to the respondents to reinstate her in the Military Nursing Service without any break in WP(C) No.4132/1999 Page 1 of 16 service and to pay her the arrears of salary and allowances from the date of her release till...
Girnar Investment Ltd Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax 4
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) NO.5750/2010 Reserved on : 19th December, 2011. % Date of Decision 5th January, 2012. GIRNAR INVESTMENT LTD ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Anoop Sharma and Mr. Manu K. Giri, Adv. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 and ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, sr. standing counsel CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR.1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.2. To be referred to the Reporters or not Yes.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes R.V. EASWAR, J.: This is a petition filed by M/s Girnar Investment Ltd. seeking issue of a writ or order or direction quashing the order dated 10th June, 2010 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act (Act, for short). A prayer is also made seeking direction WP(C) No.5750/2010 Page 1 of 30 to the CIT not to levy interest under Section 220(2) of the Act for...
ifci Limited Vs. State Bank of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on : 05.01.2012 + W.P.(C) 1296/2011 and CM No.2723/2011 IFCI LIMITED ..... Petitioner versus STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr. P.S. Bindra, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Rajiv Kapur and Ms. Vatsala Rai, Advocates for Respondent No.1/SBI with Mr. P.J. Thomas, General Manager, SBI Mr. Dinkar Singh, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 5 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J (ORAL).1. In the captioned writ petition, a challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 06.12.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short, AAIFR). The AAIFR by the impugned judgment confirmed the order passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short, BIFR) dated 18.04.2007 which infact was a clarification and/or modification of its earlier order ...
Jai Bhagwan @ Kale Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl. Rev.P. 187/2009 % Reserved on: 19th December, 2011 Decided on: 5th January, 2012 JAI BHAGWAN @ KALE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. S.C. Sharma and Mr. R.P. Bhardwaj, Advocate versus STATE ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for the State. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA.1. By this petition, the Petitioner lays a challenge to the judgment of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 23rd January, 2009 convicting him for offences under Sections 279/304A IPC, the order on sentence dated 28th January, 2009 directing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month and the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 4th April, 2009 upholding the conviction and the order on sentence..2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the learned Trial Court considered inadmissible evid...
Joginder Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 25th November, 2011 Decided on: 5th January, 2012 + CRL.A. 1039 and Crl.M.B. 1227/2010(Bail) JOGINDER ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Manish Kumar Singh, Advocate versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, APP for the State with SI Premvir Singh. AND + CRL.A. 1082/2010 and Crl. M.B. No. 1228/2010(Bail) RAJ KUMAR @ RAJU and ANR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Chaudhary, Advocate versus STATE ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, APP for the State with SI Premvir Singh. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA.1. By the present appeals the Appellants Joginder, Rajkumar and Brijesh Kumar lay a challenge to the judgment dated 29th July, 2010 convicting them for offences punishable under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and order dated 3 rd August, 2010 sentencing them for Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten years and a fine of rupees fifty thousand each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Impri...
Sanjay Kumar Behera and ors Vs. State Nct of Delhi and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Crl. M.C. NO.10. OF 2012 Date of Decision: 05.01.2012 SANJAY KUMAR BEHERA and ORS. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Vivek Singh, Advocate versus STATE NCT OF DELHI and ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State Mr. Devinder Singh Khatana, Advocate for respondent No.2. with Respondent No.2. in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (ORAL).1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the FIR bearing No. 573/2000 relating to Police Station Sarojini Nagar, under Sections 52A/63/68A of the Copyright Act along with charge sheet dated 2.6.2001, be quashed on the ground that the petitioners, who are the accused in the matter, have settled their disputes with the complainant/respondent No.2, Shri Satish Kapoor. A copy of the settlement agreement dated 30.09.2011 entered into between the parties enumerating, inter alia, that the complainant, Sh...
Subhash Chander Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
Oral: M.L. Chauhan, Member (J): 1. Applicant has filed this OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs: “(i) The appointment of the petitioner to the post of Junior Accounts Officer is a ‘Direct Appointment’ and applicant is a ‘direct recruit’ on the post of Junior Accounts Officer for all purposes including Assured Career Progression Scheme. Since the applicant as per his service records in the custody of respondent No.4 was not promoted to the post of Junior Accounts Officer but appointed on merit in a competitive examination, graded in a central cadre controlled Controller General of Accounts Ministry of Finance, appointment is also without approval by the Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness/merit in the feeder grade, seniority of the applicant in the new cadre was fixed on the basis of merit, in case of applicant the post of Junior Accounts Officer is also not immediately next promotional post in the hierarchy and ...
Jas Ram Kaim and Another Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through It ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
V.K. Bali, Chairman: 1. By this common order, we propose to dispose of two connected Original Applications, as common questions of law and facts arise in both the Applications. Learned counsel representing the parties also suggest likewise. Bare minimum facts, which need necessary mention, have, however, been extracted from OA No.3913/2010 in the matter of Kanwar Singh v Municipal Corporation of Delhi. 2. The applicant, earlier in point of time, filed OA No. 1731/2009, which came to be disposed of with OA No.1730/2009 vide common order dated 26.02.2010. He sought regularization in the post of Senior Inspector of Schools (Science), later re-designated as Assistant Education Officer (AEO) (Science), to which he was promoted on ad hoc basis from 11.08.1997. He was also promoted to the post of Deputy Education Officer (DEO) on ad hoc basis. It was his grievance that two AEOs from Physical Education stream had been promoted on regular basis, and further proposals had been sent by the respon...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »