Delhi Court October 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.
Ms. Sancorp Confectionary Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. M/S. Gumlink a/S
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
V.K. JAIN, J. IA No.14432/2012 (under Order 39 Rule 1and2 CPC) 1. The plaintiff No.1 M/s Sancorp Confectionary Pvt. Ltd. entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with the defendant company on 15.12.2009, for setting up a Joint Venture Company (JVC). Pursuant to the said JVA, a company named Gum Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (JV Company) was incorporated, with the defendant and the plaintiff no.1 having equal shareholding. The plaintiff no.1 and defendant provided some initial funding to the JV Company and agreed that the remaining funding would be arranged, inter alia, by issue of Compulsorily Convertible Debentures (CCDs) in favour of the party providing funding to the JV Company. Thereafter, the defendant company arranged for remaining initial funding and a Debenture Subscription Agreement(DSA) dated 21.04.2010 was executed between JV Company and the defendant whereby the JV Company agreed to allot 46,68,678 CCDs for aggregate consideration of Rs.4,66,86,760/- to the defendant. The JV Compa...
Jaswinder Singh and Another Vs. Mrigendra Pritam Vikramsingh Steiner a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. 1. The interplay of the jurisdictions to be exercised under Letters Patent and as the First Appellate Court while dealing with non-appealable orders passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of ordinary original civil jurisdiction has given rise to the present reference. The question, thus, which arises for consideration is: “If an order is passed by the learned single Judge in exercise of Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction which is not appealable under Section 104 (1) read with Order 43 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Code”) whether the remedy would be under Section 10 (1) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) or under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent?” 2. The occasion to make this reference arose on account of the fact that at various times pronouncements of this Court have treated it as an “either” or “or” sit...
H.S. Madan Vs. Indian Trade Promotion Organisation and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.07.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in TA No. 14/2012. 2. As pointed out in an order dated 13.08.2012 the only question which arises for consideration is whether the charge sheet served upon the petitioner was done prior to his retirement or not? According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he had retired in the “afternoon” of 31.03.2005 and that the charge sheet which was served upon him at 8.40 p.m on that date was after he had retired. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the word “afternoon” refers to the period between 12 noon and evening and does not, in any event, extend beyond the office hours, that is, 5 p.m. It was thus contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge sheet had been served upon the petitioner after he had retired and therefore the same was illegal and was liable to ...
Tungal Giri Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Chairman/Managing Director ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J) : As delineated from the Original Application, the applicant was appointed as Conductor in DTC w.e.f. 17.03.1981. He completed 12 and 24 years service on 17.03.1993 and 17.03.2005, respectively. The Board of Directors of DTC accorded its approval to implementation of ACP Scheme in DTC vide Resolution No. 70/2002 dated 12.08.2002 and the benefit of said Scheme was extended to DTC employees w.e.f. 9.8.1999, i.e. the date of Scheme itself. Writ Petition (Civil) 3837/2007 filed by the applicant before Delhi High Court seeking issuance of direction to respondents to grant him two financial up-gradation in terms of ACP Scheme dated 9.08.1999 as well as to consider him for regular promotion was transferred to this Tribunal and registered as TA No.672/2009, in which this Tribunal passed detailed order dated 18.09.2009 declining the prayer of the applicant. Relevant excerpts of said judgment read as under: Shri Tungal Giri working as Conductor in Delhi Transport Corpor...
Rita Vohra Vs. the Deputy Commissioner (Disciplinary Authority) O/O th ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
(ORAL) Shri G George Paracken: The applicant has been working as an Upper Division Clerk (UDC for short) in the office of 1st respondent, namely, the Deputy Commissioner (New Delhi District). By the impugned Annexure A-1 Order dated 4.6.2012, respondent No.1, in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 10 Sub Rule (a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, placed her under suspension with immediate effect. The reason given in the said impugned order for her suspension is that the disciplinary proceedings are contemplated against her. Later on, vide Order No.118 dated 11.6.2012, the Services Department, Branch II of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, routinely transferred her from the office of the Deputy Commissioner to Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar (BSA for short) Hospital and she stood relieved w.e.f. 13.6.2012 with a direction to report for duties in the transferred office. Accordingly, she joined the BSA Hospital on 14.6.2012 and started performing her duties there. She was also deputed there as Booth...
Nb. Sub. Sureshmishra Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
1. Petitioner by this petition has prayed that the order dated 18th August 2006 passed by the Respondents pursuant to the judgment dated 16th March 2006 may be quashed and the Petitioner may be granted ante-date seniority alongwith all the consequential benefits including monetary, to which he is entitled. 2. Petitioner joined Indian Army on 27th December 1977 in the category of Normal Entry Rate (NER) in Group Ctrade. On 14th February 1983, he alongwith other Sappers of Bengal Engineers Group at Roorkee was re-mustered into Group Btrade as Clerk (GD) Class IV and the said re-musteration was done in the interest of the organisation to make up the deficiency into the clerical trade. At the relevant time when the Petitioner was re-mustered from Group 'C' to Group 'B' he was under the scale of Rs.225/- per month basic pay. The said scale even continued to remain the same and did not change after the Petitioners re-musteration and thus the Petitioner also did not get any benefit either in ...
Ex Jwo Sudama Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
1. Both these petitions were initially filed before the Honble Delhi High Court and were transferred to this Tribunal after its formation. 2. Both these cases involve common question of law and, therefore, are being disposed of by a common order. For convenient disposal of both these cases, the facts given in the case of Ex JWO Sudama Singh are taken into consideration. 3. The Petitioner Sudama Singh was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 13th November 1975 as a Radio Technician and thereafter graduated to Radio Fitter and was promoted as JWO. On 30th May 1998, the age for retirement was enhanced for Air Force personnel from 55 to 57 years. The initial period of engagement was 15 years after which he was granted a service extension for a period of six years from 13th November 1990 till 12th November 1996 and subsequently for five years from 13th November 1996 till 12th November 2001 and thereafter for three years from 13th November 2001 till 12th November 2004 on his having met the el...
Ved Prakash Vs. Om Prakash Deceased and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. Vide impugned judgment dated September 28, 2010, two suits registered as CS(OS) No.1710/2003 and CS(OS) 2261/2007 as also a Testamentary Petition registered as Test.Case No.15/2007 have been decided. CS(OS) 2261/2007 was originally filed in the District Court by late Sh.Harbhagwan Dass but was transferred to the Original side of this Court and renumbered as aforenoted. In the suit he had sought a decree for possession and damages against his son Ved Prakash i.e. the appellant, alleging that the appellant being his son was permitted to reside on the first floor of property bearing Municipal No.E-5, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi owned by him and had refused to vacate the same in spite of a notice dated February 12, 2002 to vacate the first floor. CS(OS) No. 1710/2003 was filed by Ved Prakash, impleading his brothers Om Prakash, Varinder Kumar and Davinder Sakhuja as defendants, seeking partition of property bearing Municipal No.E-5, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi, ple...
Mansa Ram Vs. Tilak and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant Mansa Ram against the judgment and decree dated July 08, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) No.2077/2009 whereby the plaint filed by the appellant has been rejected by allowing application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC being I.A.No.3733/2010 filed by the respondents. Consequently, it was also ordered that the suit as well as all pending applications are also dismissed. 2. The relevant brief facts of the matter are that the appellant had filed the suit for declaration praying for cancellation of General Power of Attorney dated September 05, 2003 and the sale deed dated November 03, 2006 against the respondents, namely, Tilak and Sanjeev Kumar. The appellant claims that he has been in the continuous and undisturbed possession of 6 Bighas of land comprised in Khasra No.296/112/1 situated in the revenue estate of Vill.Khajuri Khas, New Delhi. 3. The case set up by the appellant against the respondents is that ...
Shri Bengali Babu and Others Vs. Director (Local Bodies) and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
Dr. Veena Chhotray: MA 2412/2012 has been filed by Shri N.C. Meena, the Pvt. Respondent in the OA 2449/2012. Through this MA the maintainability of the OA has been challenged with a prayer for its dismissal at the initial stage itself. The MA is being disposed after considering the written reply filed by the original applicant and hearing the counsels on all sides. Shri Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel would argue in support of the MA; Shri M.K. Bhardwaj, the learned counsel for the original applicant would oppose the same. Shri Arun Bhardwaj, learned counsel would appear for the official respondent, the MCD. 2. Both the applicants of the instant OA are Assistant Engineers in the MCD. They are challenging the act of the Respondents in giving benefit of reservation in the matter of promotion and fixation of seniority in the Grade of Executive Engineer. The impugned order dated 11.4.2012 (Annex A/2) calling for requisite information in order to hold a review DPC for promotion to the post o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »