Delhi Court December 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.
Ved Pal Vs. Commissioner of Police Phq, Mso Building, Ip Estate, New D ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
Shri Sudhir Kumar, Member (A): The applicant was appointed as Constable in Delhi Police on 08.03.1982 and was promoted to officiate in the rank of Head Constable (Executive) (H.C.(E), in short) with effect from 19.10.2006 through Annexure A-3 order dated 20.10.2006. On 17.01.2011, a show cause notice was issued to the applicant stating that though his name was admitted to the promotion list C (Executive) with effect from 19.10.2006 when the DPC meeting was held, it was not brought to the notice of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC, in short) that he was involved in a criminal case vide FIR No. 213/88 under Section 306 IPC PS Kakod, Distt Bulandshahar (now Noida) UP, and had these facts been brought to the notice of the DPC, the finding with regard to his suitability for promotion as H.C.(E) would have been kept in a sealed cover, in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 5(iii) of Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980, and that his promotion would have been h...
Laxmi Dutt Kaushik Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A): The applicant of this OA is a Postal Assistant at New Delhi, G.P.O. He was recruited in the respondent-department as Class IV cadre (Packer) at New Delhi Headquarter in the pay scale of Rs.196-232, as an outsider candidate, with effect from 31.01.1976, vide office order dated 18.02.1976 (Annexure A-3). Though this appointment was temporary, but it continued from time to time, and the applicant later appeared at the departmental examination for appointment to the Postman cadre, and after having been successful in that examination, he satisfactorily completed his practical and theoretical training, and was appointed as a temporary Postman, with effect from the date of assumption of his duties, in the pay scale of Rs.210-270/- through Annexure A-4 order dated 04.10.1979. The applicant later appeared at the Lower Grade Examination (LGO, in short) for promotion to the clerical cadre of Postal Assistants, and he was successful in that examination also, and was appoi...
Ge Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Subhadra Devi and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2012
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on :11. 12.2012 FAO 493/2012 GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajay Uppal, Adv. versus SUBHADRA DEVI & ANR Through: None. ..... Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL JUDGMENT VEENA BIRBAL, J.1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the impugned Judgment dated 23.12.2011 by which application of the respondents under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) has been allowed and the award dated 26.08.2010 passed by the sole arbitrator Sh. Nitin Chadha, Advocate, has been set aside. The appellant has also assailed order dated 07.08.2012 by which review application challenging the aforesaid judgment is also dismissed.2. Briefly, the relevant facts necessary for disposal of present appeal are as under:The appellant herein was the claimant in the arbitral proceedings and had filed a claim petition against the respondents stat...
Anwar Alam Vs. Jamia Milia Islamia and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2012
$~45 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:11. h December, 2012 % + W.P.(C) 7603/2012 ANWAR ALAM .... Petitioner Through: Mr.Shadan Farasat, Advocate. Versus JAMIA MILIA ISLAMIA & ORS Through: ..... Respondents Mr. M. Atyab Siddiqui and Ms.Jaya Goyal, Advocates for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) W.P.(C) 7603/2012 1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking issuance of direction against respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to send the original questioned document (Annexure P-2) dated 10.12.2011 along with past admitted handwriting samples of the petitioner and respondent No. 5 to the Government Examiner for his opinion. Further, seeking direction to the Enquiry Officer that he should not be directed to file his arguments in the pending enquiry proceedings, unless he received a copy of the expert opinion of the Handwriting Expert.2. It is stated in the petition that after completion of the prosecution evidence...
Honey Well International (India) Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. -------------- ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:11. h December, 2012 % + CO.APPL.(M) 150/2012 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT LTD ..... Transferor Company No. 1 AND HONEYWELL CONTROLS AND AUTOMATION INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Transferor Company No. 2 AND MATRIKON INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Transferor Company No. 3 WITH HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. Through ..... Transferee Company Mr. N. Ganpathy, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) 1 This is a first motion application under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 filed by Honeywell International (India) Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as Transferee Company or Applicant Company) in respect of a Scheme of Amalgamation between Honeywell Controls and Automation India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as Transferor Company No. 1), Callidus Technologies India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as Transferor Company No.2) and Matrikon Indus...
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Kamla Rao and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:11. h December, 2012 + MAC.APP. 819/2012 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Through: ...... Appellant Mr. Punit Vinay, Advocate versus SMT. KAMLA RAO & ORS. Through: None. .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of ` 12,22,416/awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour of Respondent No.1 for the death of her husband Madhav Rao.2. The finding on negligence 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 deceased Madhav Rao was doing a private job in Safal Dairy and was earning ` 8,000/- per month. In the absence of any cogent evidence with regard to the deceaseds income, the Claims Tribunal took the minimum wages of an unskilled worker as fixed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi under the Minimum Wages ...
Shri Ram Bearing Ltd. Vs. M/S Trishakti Electronics P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:11th December 2012 % + CO.PET. 179/1994 SHRI RAM BEARING LTD. Through None. ..... Petitioner versus M/S TRISHAKTI ELECTRONICS P. LTD. Through ..... Respondent Mr. Mayank Goel, Adv. for the Official Liquidator. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) Co. Appl. 2386/2012 1. This application has been filed under Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking dissolution of the Company M/s. Trishakti Electronics (P) Ltd. The Company was wound up on 17.09.1999.2. The registered office of the Company was located at C-37 Cannaught Circus, New Delhi. The factory premises of company was located at C-42, Sector-2, Noida (UP). On reaching the registered office of the Company no signboard was found there; the same was the position qua the factory premises; on reaching there no signboard was found of the factory either. Vipin Sahni, the landlord was contacted who informed that the factory premises was situated at ...
Rajneesh Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment pronounced on:11. 12.2012 WP(C) No.6953/2012 RAJNEESH KUMAR .. Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS .. Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners For the Respondent : Mr Sanjeev Joshi with Mr Narender Bisth : Mr Anjum Javed with Mr Mohd. Noorullah CORAM: HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.1. This writ petition arises out of an order dated 22.09.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (Tribunal) in O.A. No. 2815/2010. By way of the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner herein. The factual matrix unfolds as under:(i) A regular departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner by virtue of an order dated 22.08.2006. The allegation imputed against the petitioner was that while posted at Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi, the petitioner was entrusted ...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nawab and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision :11. h December, 2012 % + MAC.APP.No.198/2005 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Vijay Chandra Jha and Ms. Sonia Sharma, Advs. versus NAWAB & ORS. ..... Respondents Through : None. + MAC.APP.No.212/2005 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Vijay Chandra Jha and Ms. Sonia Sharma, Advs. versus SITA RAM & ORS. Through : None. + ..... Respondents MAC.APP.No.219 /2005 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Vijay Chandra Jha and Ms. Sonia Sharma, Advs. versus NAFISA BEGUM & ORS. Through : ..... Respondents None. CORAM :THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT(ORAL) 1. The appellant has challenged the common award of the Claims Tribunal to the limited extent that the Claims Tribunal has not granted the recovery rights to the appellant to recover the award amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.2. The accident dated 1st September, 1995 resulted in death of Sanjay...
Shanu Estates Private Limited and anr. Vs. ...................
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:11th December 2012 % + COMPANY PETITION NO. 430 of 2012 Connected with COMPANY APPLICATION (M) NO. 95 OF 201.IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 (1 of 1956) SECTION 39 AND 39.IN THE MATTER OF AMALGAMATION OF Shanu Estates Private Limited Transferor Company WITH Nightingale Farms Private Limited Transferee Company Petitioner Companies Through Mr Ashish Middha and Ms. B. Maragatha Nithya, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. Pradhan, Dy. Registrar, Registrar of Companies for the Regional Director Mr.Rajeev Behl, Advocate for Official Liquidator Page 1 of 8 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) 1. This joint Petition has been filed under sections 391 & 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 by the Petitioner Companies seeking sanction to the Scheme of Amalgamation of Shanu Estates Private Limited, Petitioner/ Transferor Company with Nightingale Farms Private Limited.2. The registered offices of the Petitioner...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »