Delhi Court November 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.
Nyaya Bhoomi Vs. Gnct of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : November 23, 2012 + Review Pet. 646/2012 in WP(C) 380/2012 NYAYA BHOOMI .....Petitioner Represented by: Mr.J.K.Mittal, and Mr.Arun Gulati, Advocates with Mr.B.B.Saran, Petitioner in person. versus GNCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.K.T.S.Tulsi, Sr.Advocate instructed by Ms.Zubeida Begum, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.Review Petition No.646/2012 1. Picking on the last sentence in paragraph 12 of our decision dated October 18, 2012 the Review Petition has been filed pointing out that 45 metres equals 150 feet and not 100 feet. The sentence in question reads as follows:The multimodal public transport system : BRT is conceived of in such road segments where the total width of the road is 45 metres and above i.e. 100 feet.2. During arguments in the Review Application learned counsel for the writ petitioner could not point out ...
Managing Committee Vidya Bhawan Girls Sr. Sec Scho Vs. Director of Edu ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C)No.5855/2012,C.M.No.16927/2012, C.M.No.17566/2012 & C.M.No.12039/2012 Reserved on:1. t November, 2012 Pronounced on:23. d November, 2012 % MANAGING COMMITTEE VIDYA BHAWAN GIRLS SR. SEC SCHOOL . . . Petitioner through : Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate along with Ms. Tinu and Mr. Aman Joshi, Advocates. VERSUS DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND ANR. . . .Respondent through: Mr. J.C. Malik, Advocate for Respondent. Mr. Baldev Kishan in person in CM No.16927/2012. CORAM :HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW D. MURUGESAN, Chief Justice 1. The petitioner, the Managing Committee Vidya Bhawan Girls Sr. Sec. School has filed the above writ petition challenging the order dated 07.9.2012 passed by the Special Director of Education (ACTII) wherein and whereby he communicated the decision and order of Honble Lieutenant Governor of Govt. of NCT of Delhi to take over the management of the school under sub-Section (1) of Section 20 of De...
Ved Paul Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi, Through Commissioner of Police and ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
Dr. Dharam Pal Sharma, Member (J) : The moot question that arises for consideration in the present case is when the earlier order dated 30.3.2010 terminating the services of the applicant under Rule 5 (1) of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 has been quashed being stigmatic and punitive and as such could not have been passed without holding a regular inquiry, can the respondents pass a fresh order of termination simplicitor under the said Rules, without their being any change of facts which provided the foundation for termination order in both the cases? 2. The law on this question is well settled. The terms of order of discharge are not conclusive where the order of discharge has been made with the object of punishing the employee for some misconduct, it would be open to the Court to go behind the terms of order of discharge and examine all the attending circumstances in order to find out whether the form of order was only a camouflage for an order of dismissal...
Dinesh Kumar Chavan and Others Vs. All India Institute of Medical Scie ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
Oral: (Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) :) The applicants no.1 and 3 are working as Lab. Attendants in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) respectively with adhoc/temporary basis. The applicant No.2 is working as Lab Technician in the AIIMS on temporary basis. As per their averments, the applicants are eligible for regularization/absorption since they have completed 15 years of service in accordance with the policy on this subject of the respondents. It is also stated that the cases of the applicants for absorption/regularization have been considered by the Screening Committee held on 7.3.2012 and 20.4.2012 relevant documents in support have been annexed as Annexures A/1 and A/2 with the OA. These are dated 20.4.2012 and 22.3.2012. It is the grievance of the applicants that despite a lapse of more than eight months, a final decision in this regard has not been taken by the respondents. 2. The OA seeks by way of relief a direction to the respondents to finalize the cases o...
Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Smt. Arfina and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:22. d November, 2012 + MAC.APP. 1124/2011 TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD....... Appellant Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv. versus SMT. ARFINA & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `11,06,200/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour of the legal representatives of deceased Mohd. Arif, who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 25.09.2010.2. The finding on negligence reached by the Claims Tribunal is not challenged by the Appellant Insurance Company. Thus, the same has attained finality.3. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal it was claimed that the deceased was working as a Sales Manager with M/s. Supreme Enterprises and was getting a salary of `34,500/- per month. It was also claimed that the deceased had studied upto 9th or 10th standard.4. I...
M/S. Overnite Express Limited Vs. M/S. Overnite Express Karamchari Uni ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Decision: November 22,2012 CS(OS) 1066/2010 M/S. OVERNITE EXPRESS LIMITED Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. Rajesh Gogna, Adv. versus M/S. OVERNITE EXPRESS KARAMCHARI UNION (REGD.) & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a suit for permanent injunction. Defendant No.1 is a Union of the employees of the plaintiff Company and defendants No.2 & 3 are its President and General Secretary respectively. There have been demands by the defendants claiming extra travelling allowance and benefits for the employees of the plaintiff Company. Those demands were not met and the dispute raised by the defendants was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 12 th August, 2008. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendants got frustrated on account of dismissal of the industrial dispute raised by them and started threatening and intimidating the officers of the plainti...
Parsvnath Developers Limited Vs. Rail Land Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2012
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: November 16, 2012 Pronounced on: November 22, 2012 + W.P.(C) 6693/2011 PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vijay Nair, Mr. Rajat Joneja, Ms. Mitteli Kaushal and Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocates. versus RAIL LAND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent Through: Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, Additional Solicitor General with Mr.Amit Kumar, Mr.Ritesh Kumar, Mr.Sidharth Tyagi and Mr.Ankit Rajgaria, Advocates. + W.P.(C) 5089/2012 & CM No.10421/2012 (u/S 15.CPC) PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vijay Nair, Mr. Rajat Joneja, Ms. Mitteli Kaushal and Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocates. versus RAIL LAND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent Through: Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, Additional Solicitor General with Mr.Amit Kumar, Mr.Ritesh Kumar, Mr.Sidharth Tyagi and Mr.Ankit Rajgaria, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR 1 The ent...
Commissioner of Income Tax Iv Vs. Fair Finvest Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2012
$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:22. 11.2012 + ITA 232/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IV ..... Appellant Through Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel versus FAIR FINVEST LTD ..... Respondent Through Mr. Ved Jain, Adv. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR S. RAVINDRA BHAT,J: (OPEN COURT) The revenue claims to be aggrieved by order dated 28.10.2011 of the ITAT in ITA No.1795/Del/2011. The question of law sought to be urged by it is whether the Tribunal fell into error in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on assessees return in re-assessment proceedings, were deleted.2. The facts of the case are that in the reassessment proceedings for assessment year 2002-03, the revenue sought to tax the income which had escaped assessment. This resulted in addition to the tune of `55,01,125/-. This was on account of share application money which was received d...
Dtc and anr. Vs. Veena Kapoor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:7. h November, 2012 Pronounced on:22. d November, 2012 + MAC.APP. 550/2005 DTC & ANR. Through: ...... Appellants Mr. J.N. Aggarwal, Adv. versus VEENA KAPOOR & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.1. The Appellant Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) impugns a judgment dated 21.02.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of `4,10,100/- was awarded in favour of the First Respondent for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 30.04.1996.2. As per the case set up by the First Respondent, on 30.04.1996 she was travelling in a TSR not DL-1RA-7004 from ISBT, Kashmere Gate to her house at Vikaspuri. At about 4:30 A.M. the autorickshaw reached near MIG flats, Rajouri Garden. A DTC bus not DL-1P-9234 came from behind; overtook the autorickshaw and without giving any signal abruptly stopped the vehic...
Rbi Marketing (Netherlands) B.V and anr Thr. Attorne Vs. State and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2012
HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI + W.P. (CRL.) No. 1518/2011 and Crl. M.A. No. 17542/2011 (stay) Judgment reserved on 11th October, 2012 % Judgement delivered on 22nd November, 2012 RBI MARKETING (NETHERLANDS) B.V & ANR THR. ATTORNEY ..... Petitioners Through :Mr. Uday U. Lalit, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prateek Jalan, Mr. Prasenjit Keswani, Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni and Ms. Jyoti Gupta, Advs. versus STATE & ORS Through ..... Respondents :Mr. Dayan Krishnan, ASC with Mr. Nikhil A. Menon, Ms. Manvi Priya, Advs. and Inspector Raj Kumar Saha, CBT/EOW/Crime Branch New Delhi Mr. Aman Lekhi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Kapur and Mr. Shivek Trehan, Advs. respondent nos. 2 and 3 A.K. PATHAK, J.1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C., for short), petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 195/2011 under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of the Indi...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »