Delhi Court February 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.
Capt. R. Khosla Vs. Jetlite India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
A.K. SIKRI, ACJ.(ORAL) 1. This Intra-Court appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 09.09.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.9135/2006. By means of that judgment, the learned Single Judge has allowed the aforesaid writ petition of the respondent herein and set aside the award dated 13.02.2006 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT)-cum-Labour Court in I.D. No.24/2000.2. The appellant herein was appointed as Pilot in Sahara Airlines with effect from 01.11.1994. His services were terminated on 16.07.1998 after holding departmental inquiry on the charges leveled against him vide charge-sheets dated 05.06.1998 and 20.06.1998. Against the termination order, the appellant approached the proper government under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and raised a dispute. This dispute was referred to CGIT with the following terms of reference:“Whether the action of the Chief Controller, Sahara Airlines Ltd. 7th Floor, Amba Deep Building, 14, Kastur...
Naresh Chand JaIn and Another Vs. Km Tayal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)1. Order impugned before this Court is the order dated 07.11.2009 which has dismissed the review petition filed by the defendant seeking a review of the order dated 29.08.2008. Vide order dated 29.08.2008 on the application filed by the petitioner seeking a reconsideration of the mediation settlement arrived at between the parties, the Court had allowed the prayer and had noted that parties again be referred for mediation and the parties had been directed to go back for mediation for 04.09.2008; relevant would it be to state that on 04.09.2008, the Court was of the view that no clarification is required of the mediation proceedings and since after the date of mediation, written statement has also been filed, the Court shall proceed to deal with the case on its merits. The impugned order had in fact noted that the mediation talks have failed between the parties.2. This is the grievance of the present petitioner. Respondent is also present in person. Record shows...
Cit Vs. Siel Holdings Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
SANJIV KHANNA,J: (ORAL)This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟, for short) in the case of SIEL Holdings Ltd., which is now merged with Usha International Ltd. pertains to the assessment year 2007-08.2. The Assessing Officer had included/ added an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- to the taxable income under Section 41(1) of the Act inter alia recording as under: -“As per the information available during the Assessment Proceeding, it is found that Rs.50 Lacs (Rs.Fifty Lakhs) has been lying in the form of provision as Contingency Amount in the Liability side of the Balance Sheet read with Schedule 7 of the Audited Accounts. The Assessee was asked to explain and justify continuance of this Contingent Liability. In reply, it has been emphasized by the Assessee that pursuing to scheme of arrangement of Siel Ltd., approved by High Court of Delhi vide order dated 26.08.2003, our company had received certain Investment as Assets and also ...
Union of India Vs. Competition Commission of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
VIPIN SANGHI, J. 1. The petitioner-Union of India (UOI) through the Chairman, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways assails the order dated 03.05.2011 passed by the Competition Commission of India (Commission) in Case No. 64/2010, whereby the said Commission has rejected the petitioner’s challenge to jurisdiction of the Commission to entertain the complaint on the basis of the information of respondent No. 2 under Section 19(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the Act). The Commission has rejected the stand of the petitioner that it is not an ‘enterprise’ within the definition of the said term as contained in Section 2(h) of the Act. The petitioner also raised an objection to the maintainability of proceedings before the Commission by contending that an arbitration agreement existed between respondent No. 2 and the petitioner and, consequently, the proceedings before the Commission could not proceed and were liable to be referred to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbi...
Ashok Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
S.P.Garg, J. (Open Court) 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant Ashok Kumar against the judgment dated 22.01.1998 and order on sentence dated 27.01.1998 of the Ld.ASJ in SC No.159/1994 by which he was convicted for committing the offences punishable under Sections 302/307 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of `500/-.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 10.11.1991, Daily Diary Entry (DD) No.5 was recorded at police post JPN Hospital at 7.00 A.M. by Const.Raghuvinder Singh on getting wireless message from a lady Const.Urmila regarding the apprehension of a thief at 175, Rouse Avenue Road, DDU Marg, Delhi. Investigation of the case was assigned to ASI Shamim Akhtar who reached the spot. Insp.Mazhar Hussain posted as SHO, PS IP Estate along with his staff also reached the spot. There they found that PW Satyavan and PW Vinod had caught hold of the accused who had injuries on his head and hands, in the open ground of the kothi. O...
Narinder Mahajan and Another Vs. Wrestling Federation of India and Oth ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
VIPIN SANGHI, J.(Oral) 1. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the two petitioners, namely Shri Narender Mahajan, Executive Member, Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) and Shri Dushyant Sharma (whose election as President of respondent No. 1/WFI has been set aside by this Court), seek issuance of a writ of certiorari and seek quashing the election of respondent No. 3 and 4 as the Secretary General and the Senior Vice President of respondent No. 1-Wrestling Federation of India respectively on the ground that the same has been held in violation of the constitution of respondent No. 1. Further reliefs have been sought in consonance with this primary relief, i.e. to restraint respondents No. 3 and 4 from acting as the Secretary General and the Senior Vice President of respondent No. 1, and for direction to hold fresh election to the said posts. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, give up the prayer (e) made in the writ petition.2. Upon...
Raghubir Singh Vs. Chairman, Dda and Anthor
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
HIMA KOHLI, J(Oral) 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions to the respondents/DDA to hand over the physical possession of an alternate plot allotted to him bearing Plot No.66, Pocket No.1, Block-A, Sector-22, Rohini measuring 209 sq. mtrs. under Rohini Residential Scheme.2. Counsel for the petitioner states that the respondents decided to allot alternative plots to such of the expropriated land owners, whose land was acquired under the respondent/DDA’s Scheme of Large Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi.3. Vide letter dated 18.03.2008, the respondents/DDA had informed the petitioner that he had been allotted the subject alternative plot on perpetual lease hold basis and that he was required to submit an application for allotment of the same along with acceptance of terms and conditions of allotment and also to complete the requisite formalities including payment of the premium of the land in the manner set out...
Mukit Abbasi and Another Vs. C.N. Choudhary and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.(ORAL) 1. These three Regular First Appeals (RFAs) are filed against the same judgment and decree of the trial Court i.e. the judgment and decree dated 23.3.2009. RFA 301 of 2009 has been filed by the plaintiff in the suit. RFA 236 of 2009 has been filed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit. RFA No. 358 of 2009 is filed by defendant No. 4 in the suit. Plaintiff in the suit was the purchaser of second floor with roof rights in the property No. B-43/S-1, Dilshad Colony, Delhi. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit were the builders who along with defendant No. 3 sold the property, being the second floor, with roof rights by means of a registered sale deed dated 25.5.2004 to the plaintiff. Defendant No.4 is a Bank which sanctioned the loan to the plaintiff against equitable mortgage of the property in question.2. The disputes which have arisen in this case are on account of the peculiarity of builders in the state of New Delhi constructing a basement which is partly ...
Management of D.T.C. Vs. Dhan Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
P.K.BHASIN, J. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner (DTC) challenging the award dated 02.09.2004 of the Labour Court whereby the removal of the respondent workman from its service had been held to be illegal and his re-instatement with full back wages and other consequential benefits was ordered. 2. The respondent-workman at the time of termination of his employment was working as a driver with the petitioner. The petitioner had charged the respondent-workman vide charge sheet dated 26-12-1991 with the misconduct of unauthorized absence from duty from 13.11.1991 to 12.12.1991. The management held an also. The enquiry officer found the respondent-workman guilty of absence without permission, negligence in performance of duties and lack of interest in his work and the disciplinary authority vide order dated 24.3.1992 imposed extreme punishment of his removal from service after accepting enquiry officer’s report. 3. The respondent-workman then raised an industrial...
Mukesh Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Police Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)CM 2037/2012Allowed subject to all just exceptions.WP(C) 919/20121. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.09.2011 passed in OA 3393/2011 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The petitioner’s Original Application was dismissed at the admission stage itself, in view of the speaking order passed by the respondents on 23.09.2010.2. The petitioner had earlier filed OA 1980/2009 in which he sought seniority from the date he was appointed in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP). Before we set down the order passed in that Original Application, it would be necessary to point out that the petitioner is currently working in the Delhi Police. Earlier, he was appointed as a Sub-Inspector with Indo- Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) on 05.07.1993 on the basis of a Combined Graduate Level Examination, 1991 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission. Thereafter, he was on deputation to the Special Protection Group (SPG)...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »