Delhi Court October 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Shiv Sahni Vs. Isherdas Sahni and Brothers and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. 1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff, inter alia, seeking a decree declaring the letters dated 31st December, 2010 and 1st March, 2011 as null and void. A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants jointly and severally through themselves or their legal heirs, servant, agents or employees from interfering with the partnership rights of plaintiff in defendant No.1 in accordance with partnership deed dated 1st November, 2002 and 5th January, 2004 and also a decree of rendition of accounts. The plaintiff is one of the partners of the defendant No.1 Partnership Firm having a business of running cinema theaters. The plaintiff became the partner of the said firm after the death of his father with consent of all the legal heirs of Sh.Krishan Lal Sahni vide Partnership Deed dated 1st November, 2002. Along with the suit, the plaintiff has also filed an I.A. No.4724/2011 wherein the plaintiff has sought the injunction against the defendants. 2. T...
Kirpal Kaur Vs. Ram Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
MANMOHAN SINGH , J. 1. Appellant Mrs.Kirpal Kaur has filed the present Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 10 of Delhi High Court Act against the judgment and decree dated 21st January, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CS(OS) No. 2172/2003. The appellant who was the plaintiff had filed a suit seeking a decree for declaration and partition of the following properties:- a) Agricultural land at Village Jahgirpur and at Village Patial. b) Property bearing No.45, Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi. c) Property situated at Kothi No.56, Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Ropar. 2. She had also sought a share in the rent received from property No.45 Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi and in the income generated from the agricultural land at village Jahgirpur and village Patial. 3. The appellant is the daughter-in-law of respondent No.1 being the widow of his late son Ripudaman Singh. The respondent No.2 is other son of re...
Maheshwari Prashad and Another Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.07.1997 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 131/1995, which, in turn, arose out of FIR No. 197/1995 registered at Police Station Janak Puri, under Sections 302/307/324/34 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. 2. By virtue of the said judgment dated 26.07.1997, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellants to be guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 307/34 IPC as also of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants in respect of the offence under Section 324/34 IPC and the Arms Act offences. The appellants are also aggrieved by the order on sentence dated 29.07.1997, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has sentenced the appellants in respect of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC to imprisonment for life. The appellants were also fined `...
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. And#8220;maryadaand#8221; the ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
V.K.JAIN, J. 1. This is a suit for injunction and recovery of Rs 10 crores as damages. The plaintiff is a Government of India Undertaking and is stated to be a Fortune 500 Company, engaged in exploration and production of Natural gas and oil in the country. The plaintiff claims to be a well-known and respected major oil and gas producer, having financial arrangements with international bankers and financiers. Defendant No.2 publishes a magazine, namely, Maryada, from Uran in District Raigad of Maharashtra. Defendant No. 3 claims to be a social worker, whereas defendant No. 4 prints the magazine „Maryada’. Defendant No. 3 wrote certain articles in various issues of Maryada, alleging corruption in the project of ONGC at Uran. It was alleged that Hemant Chavan and Haridas Mhatre (defendants 2 and 3 respectively) had exposed corruption of crores of rupees in the aforesaid project, whereupon Mr P.K. Borthakur, working director of ONGC, contractors and other officers of ONGC got...
S.K. Khanna, Retd. Foreman Vs. Dr. R.C. Deka, Director
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
(ORAL) Syed Rafat Alam, Chairman This is an application for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent for not complying the order dated 16.03.2012 wherein the respondents were required to pass a speaking order on the representation of the applicant dated 08.04.2009. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent produced a copy of the memorandum dated 24.09.2012 and submitted that in compliance of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the representation of the applicant has been disposed of. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has, however, submitted that copy of the aforesaid memorandum has been served on him today in the court and he has not gone through it and in the event the applicant is aggrieved by the aforesaid memorandum, liberty may be given to him to assail the same in appropriate proceedings. 4. In view of above, the contempt application deserves to be closed, since the respondents have already complied with the direction by disposing of the representatio...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Through Its Commissioner, Civic Centre ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
(ORAL) Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) : RA No.380/2011 has been filed by the MCD, the original respondents. Through this RA, they are seeking review of the Tribunals order dated 31.03.2011. 2. The RA has not been filed within the prescribed time limit, as per the Administrative Tribunals Act and the relevant rules. However, it is accompanied by a Misc. Application for condonation of delay. The reasons stated are usual time taken by the official respondents in processing the matter. 3. Through this OA, the applicant was challenging the respondents impugned order dated 06.01.2010 rejecting his claim for regularization. The Tribunals order dated 31.03.2011 had been passed after considering the averments by both the parties and after hearing the learned counsels. The impugned order had been set aside and the following directions issued :- 6. In these premises, I am quashing and setting aside the impugned order and issuing directions to the respondents on the lines of the directions issued ...
Sh. Prabhu Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police Phq, Mso Building Ip Estat ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
George Paracken, Member (J): The applicant while working as Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police, was proceeded under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. Since the charges levelled against him was proved in the departmental proceedings, the disciplinary authority vide Annexure A1 order dated 13.02.2008 dismissed him from service with immediate effect. The applicant filed an appeal against the same but the same was rejected vide Annexure A2 order of the appellate authority dated 31.07.2008. Thereafter, aggrieved by the findings of the inquiry officer, orders of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority, he had earlier approached this Tribunal vide OA No.1903/2008 seeking the following reliefs: (i) to quash and set aside the illegal order dated 13.02.2008, passed by the Disciplinary Authority against the applicant dismissing him from the service. (ii) to quash and set aside the illegal order dated 31.07.2008, passed by the Appellate Authority ...
Verender Singh Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Its Chief Secretary D ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
(Oral) By George Paracken, Member (J): This OA has been filed by the applicant challenging Annexure A1 order dated 09.04.2009 by which his training course in Fire Fighting for the post of Fire Operator in Delhi Fire Services has been suspended. In the case of nine other persons also the respondents have taken similar actions as seen in the aforesaid order. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to go into the full facts of this case. 2. It is suffice to say that this Tribunal has considered exactly similar issue in OA No.2865/2011 - Shri Kapil Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others and connected cases, decided 2.03.2012. The operative part of the said order reads as under: 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The case of the applicants herein cannot be considered in isolation. Admittedly, the applicants belong to the same batch of candidates who applied for the post of Fire Operator under the Delhi Fire Service in terms of the DSSSBs advertisement in the year 2007 un...
Chaudhari Rakesh Ekanath Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, Min ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J) : The applicant, posted as Private Secretary with Member, National Commission for Scheduled Tribes ( for short NCST) in the Pay Band-2 of Rs.9300-34800/- plus Rs.4600 grade pay has filed the present 0riginal Application seeking issuance of direction to respondents to treat his post (PS) as having historical parity with PS in CSSS for the purpose of application of Notification ( G.S.R. 622 (E) dated 29.08.2008 and to grant him the grade pay of Rs.4800/- as is given to PS in CSSS cadre. Salient grounds taken in the Original Application are:- (i) The impugned order is violative of the instruction at serial no.1 beneath entry 1 office staff in the secretariat in Section II of part-B of the First Schedule to the Central Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 notified on 29 August 2008. (ii) The post of Private Secretary to Member ST Commission has historical parity with CSSS. (iii) In terms of Rule of procedure notified at the time of formation of ST Commission, a...
Ridhima Juneja Vs. Deven Juneja and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
ORDER P.K.BHASIN, J. 1. Both these petitions arose out of a complaint case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005( in short ‘the Act of 2005) though were filed against different orders of the trial Court and the appellate Court. Since both the petitions were heard together and common submissions were advanced at the Bar by the counsel for the parties the same are being disposed of together by this common order. 2. The facts, in brief, leading to the filing of these petitions may be noticed at the outset. The petitioner in Crl/M.C.No.2748/10 (reference to whom shall now onwards be made as ‘the petitioner-wife’) and respondent no. 1 in that petition and who is the petitioner in Crl.Rev.P.No.148/098(who shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘the respondent-husband’) were married on 31st January, 2004. They celebrated their honeymoon in Australia, New Zealand and Thailand and on 2nd November, 2005 they were blessed with a so...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »