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.
C.S. Sunil Nayak and Another Vs. Union of India: Through the Secretary ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
Oral: Mrs. Meera Chhibber: 1. MA 256/2011 has been filed by the applicants seeking restoration of OA 508/2010 as it was dismissed for default on 08.12.2010. For the reasons stated in the MA, this MA is allowed. Order dated 08.12.2010 is recalled. OA is restored to its original number. 2. Applicants have impugned the advertisement whereby 8 posts of Junior Analyst (Technical) have been advertised for direct recruitment. It is submitted by both the applicants that they were appointed as Junior Technical Assistant on 28.04.1998 and 13.10.1999, respectively. The next post is that of Junior Analyst. According to the Recruitment Rules, the post of Junior Analyst is to be filled (i) 33.33% by way of promotion from amongst Junior Technical Assistant with 6 years regular service in the grade failing which by deputation (ii) 66.67% by way of deputation from amongst the officers of Central Govt. (a) (i) holding analogous posts on regular basis in the parent cadre or department; or (ii) with three...
Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, Min. of Home Affairs, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
Oral: V.K. Bali, Chairman: 1. Raj Kumar, applicant herein, superannuated on 31.03.2003. Just three days before he was to superannuate, a charge memo came to be issued to him to hold regular departmental enquiry against him under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Rules of 1965’). Enquiry Officer was appointed, who gave his report on 21.10.2004, where after there was complete lull. Applicant having retired and not getting his proper pension, and even his post retiral dues having been withheld, made an application for early completion of the enquiry proceedings vide his request dated 28.04.2005. The request made by the applicant fell on deaf ears as nothing happened thereafter for more than 4-5 years. Constrained under the circumstances, when the applicant was not getting his full pension, he made an application on 23.02.2010 under Right to Information Act to know the fate of the departmental proc...
Munna Kumar Vs. Girish Arora @ Bittoo and Another
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
Barkat Ali Zaidi: 1. The short facts of the case are that a three wheeler, registered in the name of OP-I whose financer was OP-2 was purchased by the Complainant on 10.5.2007 from both the OPs for an amount of Rs.2,22,000/- by making advance payment of Rs.50,000/- to OP-1. Out of this consideration amount Rs.1,72,000/- was financed by OP No.2, the Financer and the remaining amount was to be paid in installments within 24 months @ Rs.8550/- per month. Subsequently the complainant paid the dealer OP no.1 Rs.36,665/-. 2. In June, 2009 the complainant came to know that the vehicle purchased by him con not be transferred and registered by the Transport Authority in his name for the reason that the vehicle is of `J Model meant for the sale to a particular section, to which the complainant did not belong. 3. The complainant therefore filed a civil suit No.531 of 2007 in the court of Civil Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi against both the OPs seeking permanent and mandatory induction against them wit...
The Regional Director, National Savings Vs. Kirti and Another
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
Salma Noor, Member: 1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 directed against the order dated 31-08-2010, passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum (North-East), Nand Nagri, Delhi whereby the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint of the Complainant and directed that the OPs- I, II, III and IV to jointly or severally pay to the complainant Rs.20,000/- alongwith interest as per post office rules till payment and further the OPs- I, II, III and IV are directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation to the Complainant. 2. The appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of the delay of 247 days in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard Mr Anmol, Counsel for Appellant and Mr. Sandip Dahiya, Proxy Advocate for Mr. S.D. Dixit, Counsel for Respondent and perused the application. 4. The applicant submitted in his application that the certified copy of the order 31-08-2010 was received on 04-10-2010. Thereafter fi...
Maneesh Goomer Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl. M.C. No. 4208/2011 and Crl.M.A. 19453/2011 (stay) % Decided on: 4th January, 2012 MANEESH GOOMER ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sidharth Aggarwal, Mr. Simon Bengamin, Adv. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for State with ASI Satbir Singh PS Farsh Bazar. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL).1. By the present petition the Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 14/2011 registered under Section 174-A IPC at PS Farsh Bazar..2. Before adverting to the facts of the case it may be noted that the Petitioner had earlier filed a W.P.(CRL) 412/2011 before this Court with the same prayer seeking quashing of the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom. The said writ petition came up for hearing before this Court on 25th March, 2011 when notice was issued and the Respondent/State was directed to file a reply. The matter was listed on 18th July, 2011 after a status report was filed by the S...
institute of Town Planners, India Vs. Council of Architecture and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2012
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 4th January, 2012 + WP(C) NO.8653/2008 INSTITUTE OF TOWN PLANNERS, INDIA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Pramod Gupta and Ms. Seema Rao, Advs. Versus COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE and ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Naveen R. Nath with Ms. Amrita Sharma and Mr. Darpan K.M., Advs. for R-1. Mr. Amitesh Kumar and Mr. Jatan Singh, Advs. for R-2/AICTE. Mr. Baldev Malik, Adv. for R-3/UOI. CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW JUDGMENT RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J..1. The petition impugns the Minimum Standards of Architectural Education Guidelines for Post-Graduate Programme, 2006 published by the respondent No.1 Council of Architecture (COA), to the extent they lay down guidelines for Town and Country Planning courses viz. M. Arch. (Urban and Regional Planning), M. Arch. (Transportation Planning and Design) and M. Arch. (Housing). The petition also seeks to prohibit the respondent No.1 W.P.(C)...
Vipul Amar Vs. Neeta Amar and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2012
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: January 4, 2012 + CM(M) 1191/2011 VIPUL AMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Jai Bansal, Adv. Versus NEETA AMAR and ANR ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Anu Narula and Mr. Arun Sukhija, Advs. CORAM:- HON'BLE MS JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL VEENA BIRBAL, J.1. Present is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein petitioner/husband has challenged impugned order dated 2.9.2011 passed by learned ADJ, Delhi wherein application of the petitioner seeking permission to take on record the additional documents has been rejected..2. Briefly, the facts relevant for the disposal of present petition are as under:- The petitioner/husband has filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against respondent/wife seeking dissolution of their marriage on the ground of cruelty and harassment. In that very petition, respondent/wife CM(M) 119...
Dev Raj Arora Vs. State(Thr. Cbi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl. Appeal No. 301/1999 % Reserved on: 29th November, 2011 Decided on: 4th January, 2012 DEV RAJ ARORA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. R.M. Tewari, Advocate versus STATE(THR. CBI) ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Narender Mann, Spl. PP for CBI. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA.1. By this appeal, the Appellant lays a challenge to the judgment dated 3rd June, 1999 whereby the Appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the P.C.Act) and the order dated 3rd June, 1999 directing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months on both counts..2. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that Inspector Ved Prakash was the trap officer as well as the investigating officer. He prepared the ...
Montreaux Resorts P. Ltd. and ors Vs. Sonia Khosla and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2012
$~01 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Cont.Case (C) No.165/2008 % Judgment delivered on:04th January, 2012 MONTREAUX RESORTS P. LTD. and ORS. ..... Petitioner Through : Mr.Vibhu Bakhru, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anand M Mishra, Adv. versus SONIA KHOSLA and ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms.Indra Umanayar and Mr.Gurpreet Singh, Advocates with Sh.Deepak Khosla in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral).1. While dismissing review application being R.P.No.788/2011, on 22.12.2011 it was noticed that applicant Mr.Deepak Khosla recorded the proceedings of this Court. The Registrar General and Registrar Vigilance of this Court were called in the Court..2. The Registrar Vigilance was directed to take into custody the gadgets i.e. SONY MP3 Recorder, LG Mobile Phone, and one HP Pavilion Laptop to ascertain whether the Court proceedings had been recorded by Mr.Deepak Khosla. Cont.Case (C) No.165/2008 Page 1 of 25.3. The Registrar Vigilance was further direc...
Date of Decision: 04.01.2012 Vs. Shailender Kumar Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2012
$~5 to 8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 04.01.2012 + CRL.L.P. 371/2011 GHISA RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH: SH. LAXMI NARAIN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Sanjay Sharma, Advocate. versus SHAILENDER KUMAR SHARMA ..... Respondent Through: With CRL.L.P. 372/2011 GHISA RAM DECD. THR. LAXMI NARAYAN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Sanjay Sharma, Advocate. versus SAHILENDER KUMAR SHARMA ..... Respondent Through: With CRL.L.P. 373/2011 GHISA RAM DECD. THR. LAXMI NARAIN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Sanjay Sharma, Advocate. versus SHAILENDER KUMAR SHARMA Crl.L.Ps. 371-374/2011 Page 1 of 9 ..... Respondent Through: And CRL.L.P. 374/2011 GHISA RAM DECD. THR. LAXMI NARAIN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Sanjay Sharma, Advocate. versus SHAILENDER KUMAR SHARMA ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral) +Crl.M.As. 10628/2011, 10722/2011, 10723/2011 and 10641/2011 (for restoration) Heard, in view of the reasons mentioned in the applications, the...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »