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.
Suresh Chand JaIn and Sons H.U.F. Vs. Phalphor Builders (P) Ltd. and O ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Appellant‟s endeavour to have the four sale deeds Ex.PW-1/11, Ex.PW-1/12, Ex.PW-1/13 and Ex.PW-1/14 dated June 24, 1993, June 24, 1993, September 10, 1991 and January 05, 1993 respectively got cancelled has failed and the suit filed has been dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated September 08, 2010. Undisputably M/s.Suresh Chand Jain and Sons HUF was the owner of plot bearing Municipal No.3, Parmanand Estate, New Delhi and on January 09, 1989, vide Ex.PW-1/6, had entered into a construction agreement with respondent No.1 as per which said respondent was to construct 13,000 sq.ft. building out of which 5,000 sq.ft. was the share of the appellant and the remainder had to be sold. The agreement Ex.PW-1/6 is the source of litigation as also an unregistered power of attorney Ex.PW-1/7, both executed simultaneously on January 09, 1989. The unregistered General Power of Attorney seeks to confer power and authority upon Vikram Kumar S/o Tilak Raj to do ...
Bunty Parcha and Others Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral)Crl.M.A.No.2226/2012(exemption)Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.CRL.M.C. No.637/2012 1. Notice issued.2. Ms.Rajdipa Behura, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of respondent/State.3. With the consent of learned counsel for parties, instant petition is taken up for disposal.4. Instant petition has been filed jointly by petitioner Nos.1 to 5/accused persons and petitioner No.6/complainant.5. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that petitioner No.6 has resolved all the issues qua the FIR No.408/2007 dated 31.08.2007 under Section 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 which was registered against petitioner Nos.1 to 5 at police station Mandawali Fazalpur, Delhi, on the complaint of petitioner No.6.6. He further submits that thereafter petitioner No.6 joined her matrimonial life with petitioner No.1 and is living with him since 25.11.2011, after all the issues being resolved at Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delh...
General Manager Northern Railway and Another Vs. Jagdish Prasad Vijay
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J(ORAL)1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.05.2011 passed in OA 2975/2010 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the said Original Application filed by the respondent by giving the following directions:-“(a) Applicant will be entitled to grant of Training Allowance at the rate of 15% of the basic pay with arrears for the period he functioned as Chief Instructor, ETTC, Ghaziabad.(b) The further enhancement to 30% as per the VIth CPC would be examined by the respondents and decided by a speaking and reasoned order.(c) We do not find it an appropriate case for imposition of costs.(d) Our directions are to be complied within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”2. The respondent had claimed training allowance at the rate of 15% of basic pay in the first instance as against the training allowance of ` 400 per month, which was being given to him ...
Douglas Breckenridge Vs. Jhilmil Breckenridge
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
VIPIN SANGHI, J. 1. The present petition has been preferred under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1973 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, with the allegations to the effect that the respondent has deliberately and willfully disobeyed the orders dated 30.09.2010 and 05.04.2011 passed by the Guardianship Court, Saket Courts, New Delhi, passed in Guardian Case No.66/2010 and also the orders of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 13.10.2011 in CC No.332/1, and of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 19.10.2011 passed in Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) proceedings. 2. The petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife. Out of their wedlock, they have four sons. The petitioner has preferred a divorce petition against the respondent. 3. The petitioner filed a custody petition before the Guardianship Judge, Saket, New Delhi. In the petition the petitioner stated that he resides with his three elder children at C-87, Anand Niket...
National Handicrafts and Handloom Museum Vs. Ashok Kumar and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
A.K. SIKRI, ACJ.(ORAL)CM No.921/2012There is a delay of 46 days in filing the appeal. Learned counsel for the Respondent has no objection if the same is condoned subject to payment of some costs. For the reasons stated in this application, prayer made therein is allowed and delay is condoned subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs which shall be paid to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 equally. CM stands disposed of.LPA 32/2012 Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal, learned counsel for the Respondents / Workmen submits that one of the workmen, namely, Mr. Mann Singh S/o Shri Lal Singh (Respondent No.4) is not interested in this litigation. In fact even the amount of Rs.1,76,000/- deposited by the Appellant in this Court has not been withdrawn by him and this amount can be refunded to the Appellant.2. The Respondents/Workmen were appointed on daily wage basis some time in the year 1988. When their services were terminated, they raised industrial dispute challenging the said termination. The dispute was refer...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Gupta and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J: 1. The Appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. impugns a judgment dated 14.12.2009 whereby a compensation of `62,364/- was awarded in favour of the First Respondent for having suffered injuries in an accident which took place on 31.10.2008. According to the case set up by the First Respondent, he suffered injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of a tanker bearing HR-46-5932 which was being driven by the Second Respondent and was owned by the Third Respondent. The finding of negligence and the quantum of compensation is not disputed in the Appeal. 2. The only ground of challenge is that the offending vehicle did not have any permit to ply in the area of National Capital Territory of Delhi and thus the owner was guilty of breach of the terms of policy and could avoid liability to pay the compensation under Section 149(2)(a)(i)(b) Motor Vehicles Act. 3. An application under Section 151 CPC was moved by the Appellant before the Claims Tribunal which was dismissed...
Major Kishore Singh Vs. Govt of Nct and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
HIMA KOHLI, J (Oral)1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions to respondent No.2/IOCL and respondent No.3/MCD to initiate sealing and demolition action against properties situated on the approach road to the Bijwasan Terminal being operated by respondent No.2/IOCL. The petitioner has also prayed for costs and damages to be imposed on the respondents for the purported illegal action of demolishing his dwelling unit, i.e., House No.1, Major Saab Niwas, Saini Mohalla, Bijwasan, New Delhi, on the ground that his premises was singled out and that too when demarcation proceedings were underway.2. Notice was issued on the present petition vide order dated 24.09.2010 and it was directed that status quo be maintained by the parties with regard to the property of the petitioner. On 02.08.2011, a counter affidavit was filed by respondent No.2/IOCL, wherein, it was stated that the terminal in question had been constructed by respondent No.2/IOCL after the...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Others Vs. Ramvati Upadhyay and Oth ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J (ORAL) 1. These are two Cross-Appeals. MAC APP No.199/2011 has been filed by the Appellant United India Insurance Co. Ltd. for reduction of compensation of Rs.41,53,800/- awarded for the death of Sh. R.K. Upadhyay who was aged 57 years and 04 months at the time of his death in an accident which occurred on 24.03.2006. 2. The Cross-Objections which were registered as MAC APP. No.383/2011 have been preferred by the Respondents 1 to 5 on the ground that the compensation awarded is meager. For the sake of convenience, the Appellant United India Insurance Co. Ltd. shall be referred to as the Insurer and the Cross-Objectionists shall be referred to as the Claimants. 3. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was established that the deceased R.K. Upadhyay was a Mechanical Engineer and was working as an Assistant General Manager with Engineers India Ltd., a public sector undertaking of the Government of India. The Claims Tribunal found that the accident was caused ...
Tilak Raj Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J 1. The present appeal arises in unfortunate circumstances where the appellant for the last 21 years is seeking to know, as to the forum, which would adjudicate upon its claim for damages against the Railways. Over a span of two decades, the appellant has been unable to get an answer to this issue, since at every juncture his claim has been returned with the response that the forum concerned, does not have the jurisdiction to entertain and try the claim preferred by him against the Railways. 2. The appeal, in these circumstances, is thus directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20.09.2010 passed in Interlocutory application being: IA No.746/2010 in CS(OS) 2082/2008. The appellant, who is the plaintiff in the suit had filed an application under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short, the said Act), seeking in effect exclusion of time spent in prosecuting his claim in the first instance before the Civil Court at Meerut, and thereafter, b...
Bhanwar Lal Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
ANIL KUMAR, J: 1. The petitioner who was enrolled as a Vehicle Mechanic with the respondents, the Border Roads Organisation, for a period of two years on probation up to 7th June, 2013 has challenged the order dated 10th December, 2011 passed by the respondents terminating his service under the Provision of Sub Rule (1) of Rule 5 of Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. While terminating the service of the petitioner, it was also held that he would be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus the allowances for the period of notice, at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his service, or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month. 2. The brief facts to comprehend the disputes are that the petitioner was enrolled on 8th June, 2011 and was granted the service No.GS-196381W, while being initially put on probation for a period of two years w.e.f. 8th June, 2011 up to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »