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.
Jitender Alias Kalle Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2012
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:02. 11.2012 CRL.A. 666/2010 JITENDER ALIAS KALLE ... Appellant versus STATE ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. with Ms Charul Sarin, Mr Amit Sharma, Mr Ashish Dixit, Mr Sumit Kaul & Mr Ritesh Tomar, Advs. For the Respondent: Ms Richa Kapoor, Addl. Standing Counsel. AND + CRL.A. 667/2010 JITENDER ALIAS KALLE ... Appellant versus STATE ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. with Ms Charul Sarin, Mr Amit Sharma, Mr Ashish Dixit, Mr Sumit Kaul & Mr Ritesh Tomar, Advs. For the Respondent: Ms Richa Kapoor, Addl. Standing Counsel. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.1. These two appeals pertain to the same appellant and raise a common issue. In both these appeals, the judgments, whereby the appellant has been convicted, though dictat...
Gloval Visa Services Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Diagnostic Reproductive Endoscopic A ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA NO. 440/2012 GLOVAL VISA SERVICES PVT. LTD. .. Appellant versus DIAGNOSTIC REPRODUCTIVE ENDOSCOPIC ACADEMY OF MEDICAL SURGERRY RESEARCH CENTRE ..... Respondent Date of Decision:02.11.2012 Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : : Mr. P. Narula with Ms. Prerna Mehta, Advocates. None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(ORAL) RFA No.440/2012 1. The only ground raised is that the learned court below failed to take into consideration the plea raised by the appellant/defendant in the written statement, as well as in his reply to the application filed under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC to the effect that the respondent/plaintiff was not entitled to terminate the lease by notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, as he purported to do, on account of the excess rent received by the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.1,55,482/-.2. During the course of arguments, whe...
Anil Kumar Baranwal Vs. Shri B.K. Gairola Director General, National I ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2012
Mrs. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A) CP No.436/2012 in OA No.1386/2009 has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: (i) That the Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of initiating the contempt of court proceedings against the respondents, so that the judgment dated 19.1.2010 in OA No.1386/2009 and order dated 26.9.2011 in MA No.1581/2011 can be implemented at an early date in a letter and spirit of the judgment. It is also prayed that a suitable punishment may be awarded on the respondent with heavy costs. 2. The applicant had filed OA 1386/2009 seeking the relief of quashing adverse remarks in his ACR communicated to him on 31.05.2007 with all consequential benefits. The OA was decided by the judgment dated 19.01.2010 with the following directions: 7. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the claim of the applicant against the adverse remarks has not been effectively controverted by the respondents. I am, therefore, not p...
Sh. Amar Singh Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2012
(Oral) By G. George Paracken, Member (J): This is the second round of litigation by the applicant. Earlier, the disciplinary authority on the basis of the report of the inquiry officer, imposed upon him the penalty of reduction of pay to a lower stage in the time scale of Pay for a period of two years with cumulative effect. He assailed the same before the appellate authority but the said authority rejected the same vide order dated 30.12.2009. Thereafter, he had approached this Tribunal vide OA No.285/2010 challenging the orders passed in the disciplinary proceedings. This Tribunal accepted the argument that the mandatory provisions contained in Rule 14 (18) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 have not been complied with, by the inquiry officer. Therefore, this Tribunal allowed the OA to the aforesaid extent and the impugned orders were set aside, vide order dated 27.07.2010. However, liberty was given to the respondents to take up the proceedings from the stage of Rule 14 (18) of the CCS (C...
H.C. Mittal Vs. the Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Dept. of Agric ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2012
Dr. Veena Chhotray: The applicant, a substantive UDC and working on ad hoc basis on the ex-cadre post of Accountant under The Plant Protection Advisor, Dte. of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage (Res. 2), superannuated from service on 30.09.2008. He is aggrieved at denial of 3rd financial upgradation under the MACP. This is on the ground of the applicant having refused his promotion as Stores Supervisor offered to him on 18.9.2008. Evoking the relevant condition of the MACP Scheme, the demand for MACP has not been entertained. The impugned communications dated 5/1/2011 responding to his requests, and dated 7/4/2011 responding to the legal notice on his behalf to the effect that the applicant is not eligible for the 3rd MACP are under challenge. By way of relief, the OA seeks directions for refixation of pay of the applicant w.e.f. 1.9.2008 by granting him 3rd financial upgradation under MACP on completion of 30 years of regular service. Besides, refixation of pension w.e.f. 30.9....
Sh. Ram Kumar Shastri Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Its Chief Secr ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2012
(ORAL) Shri G. George Paracken: The applicant in this case was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher (`TGT for short) (Hindi) on 07.12.1973 in the then Delhi Administration. He retired from service on 31.12.2009. While he was in service, he was given the selection grade from 01.03.1976 vide order dated 24.11.1983. However, the respondents on review revised and proponed the date of sanction of his selection grade as 01.03.1975 vide order dated 10.07.1990. Thereafter, he was entitled for the selection scale after completion of 12 years of service. However, he was granted the said scale only w.e.f. 01.03.1988 vide order dated 17.09.2003. The applicants contention is that since he had already completed 12 years of service on 28.02.1987, he should have been given the selection scale w.e.f. 01.03.1987. As the same has not been given to him, after sending several representations, he has filed this OA seeking a direction to the respondents to grant him the selection scale w.e.f. 01.03.1987 w...
Sri Ram Sayal and Sons Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Indian Railway Con ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2012
IA No. 4392 of 2010 1. These are objections filed by M/s. Indian Railway Construction Company (‘IRCON’) under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (‘Act’) to an Award dated 14th July 2009 passed by the sole Arbitrator in the disputes between IRCON and the Petitioner, Sri Ram Sayal and Sons Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (‘SRS’) arising out of a contract executed between the parties, in terms of which the work of widening and strengthening of four lanes between a portion of National Highway (‘NH’) No. 1 was awarded by IRCON to SRS. The main work in relation to the project of construction of four-lane road was awarded by Punjab Public Works Department (‘PPWD’) to IRCON. In turn, IRCON appointed two sub-Contractors for the said work and one of the sub-Contractors was SRS. 2. According to IRCON, SRS stopped work for more than one year, although the period of completion of work was three years. The disputes between the parties were...
Lalit Yadav Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DATE OF DECISION:1. t November, 2012 % + CRL.A. 1222/2012 LALIT YADAV ..... Appellants Through : Mr.Ramesh Gupta,Sr.advocate With Mr.Anil Panwar, Advocate. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Through : ..... Respondent Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for State CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRATIBHA RANI, J (ORAL) Crl.A.1222/2012 1. Admit.2. List on 06.12.2012.3. Trial Court record be requisitioned and made available at least three days prior to next date of hearing. Crl.M.(B) No.1891/2012 1. This is an application moved under Section 389 Cr.P.C., for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of appeal.2. At the outset, as the learned trial court has awarded less than the minimum prescribed sentence to the appellant in a case under Section 376 IPC without giving any special reasons for not awarding the minimum prescribed sentence, the State has been asked to inform whether any appeal has been preferred for enhancement of the sentenc...
Shashank Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Herbicides India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : November 01, 2012 + RFA(OS) No. 97/2011 & CM No.1067/2012 (X-Objections) SHASHANK PESTICIDES PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.R.S.Kela, Advocate versus HERBICIDES INDIA LTD. Represented by : ..... Respondent None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Discussions as per letter dated October 19, 1995, Ex.PW-1/3 and letter dated October 20, 1995, Ex.P-1/D1-D4 between the appellant and the respondent fructified in the terms of the contract pertaining to respondent manufacturing and supplying to the appellant 1,00,000 litres of 2,4-D Ethyl Easter 38% as per Ex.PW-1/4.2. Under cover of Ex.PW-1/4 the respondent intimated appellant that the contract was firmed up at the agreed rate of `96.80 per litre with local/CST @2% extra. The letter also acknowledged respondent having received `2,00,000/- from the appellant as advance payment.3. Ex.PW-1/4 has ...
M/S Pantaloon Retail (India) Ltd. and ors Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2012
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3837/2009 & CRL.M.A. 13069/2009 M/S PANTALOON RETAIL (INDIA) LTD. & ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. D.C. Mathur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajeev Agarwal, Advocate and Mr. Sanjay K. Sharma, Advocate. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for State with Mr. Rajpal Singh, Food Inspector. Date of Decision:1. t November, 2012 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J (ORAL):1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal case bearing CC No. 1902/2009 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.2. The relevant facts of the present case are that M/s. Pantaloon Retail (India) Ltd.petitioner No.1 herein is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It runs retail stores in the name of M/s. Food Bazar.3. On 12th June, 2008, the Food Inspector, Delhi lifted three sealed packets of...
- ‹ Prev
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 52
- 53
- 54
- Next ›
- Last »