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.
Satish Kr. JaIn Vs. Citi Bank N.A. and Another
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2012
Barkat Ali Zaidi: 1. The facts of the case are that on 30.5.2005 the complainant had taken a loan of Rs.3,10,000/- from the OP Citi Bank payable in 48 EMIs of each of Rs.9106/-. Since the complainant appellant failed to fulfill his promise, the bank reframed the payment plan; according to which the complainant was to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- in all and in turn the bank promised that post dated EMI cheques, which bank had obtained from him in advance, will not be presented for encashment and no dues certificate would be sent in due course. A cheque of Rs.80,000/-, which was issued in favour of the bank towards the re-payment of the loan became dishonoured for the reason that bank encashed one of the EMI cheque of Rs.9106/- due to which funds arranged for encashment of cheque of Rs.80,000/- had become insufficient. Subsequently this dispute was settled between the parties and the bank assured the complainant to issue no due certificate with blank security cheques but failed, the complain...
M/S P Manokaran Power Loom Rep. by Its Proprietor and Others Vs. Tamil ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2012
1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 28.10.2010 made under Section 31 -A of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, (for short Air act ) whereunder the Unit of the Appellant was directed to be closed and further the electricity Board was directed to stop supply of electricity for certain violations under the said Act. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant appears to have approached the Honble High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No. 2389 to 2408 of 2010. However, the said writ petition papers were directed to be returned to the Appellant to enable him to approach the Green Tribunal. 2. When the matter had come up for hearing on 14.2.2012, we entertained a doubt as to the maintainability of the application. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant sought adjournment till date. The Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted and argued that though the impugned order is passed under Section 31-A of the Air Act and an appeal is available under Section 31 of the...
Date of Decision: 14.02.2012 Vs. Cbi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(Crl) No.30/2012 Date of Decision: 14.02.2012 Asif Balwa ...... Petitioner Through: Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Mr. Gurpreet Singh and Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocates Versus CBI ...... Respondent Through: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Advocate And + W.P.(Crl) No.32/2012 Rajiv B. Agarwal ...... Petitioner Through: Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Mr. Gurpreet Singh and Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocates Versus CBI ...... Respondent Through: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J..1. In these petitions, a short question arises for determination. The challenge is to the proceedings and order dated 20.12.2011 passed by learned Special Judge, conducting trial of the cases known as "2G Spectrum"..2. PW7 was under further cross examination on 20.12.2011. After he was cross examined at length running into 12 pages and further cross examination W.P.(C) Nos.30/2012 and 32/2012 Page 1 of 6 was deferred, the learned counsel for the petitioners objected to t...
Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Vs. V.Kaushik and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 27th January, 2012 Judgment pronounced on: 14th February, 2012 + CS(OS) No. 1579/2007 ANCHOR HEALTH AND BEAUTY CARE PVT. LTD. ... Plaintiff versus V.KAUSHIK and ORS. ... Defendants Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Plaintiff : Mr Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, Mr. Sudeep Chatterjee, Mr. Sudeep Bhandari and Mr. Ashwin Kumar, Advs. For Defendants : Mr. Pravin Anand and Ms. Tanvi Misra, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN V.K. JAIN, J. IA 21176/2011(O.VI R.17 r/w. S.151 CPC).1. This is an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff company has been using the trade mark and logo ANCHOR, in a red and white colour combination. The plaintiff launched a tooth paste "Anchor White - Allround Protection in the year 2005. It was alleged that in August, 2007, the defendants introduced a new "Strong Teeth" carton using the termin...
Vishal Exports Overseas Limited Vs. Humburg Bulk Carriers, Gmbh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI OMP No.173. of 2005 Reserved on: January 17, 2012 Decision on: February 14, 2012 VISHAL EXPORTS OVERSEAS LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Mihir Thakore, Senior Advocate with Mr. Umesh Shukla, Ms. Manmeet Arora and Ms. Princy Ponnan, Advocates. versus HUMBURG BULK CARRIERS, GMBH ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Prashant S. Pratap with Mr. O.P. Gaggar, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT 14.02.2012.1. The Petitioner, Vishal Exports Overseas Limited, challenges an Award dated 30th August 2002 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal ('Tribunal') in the dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent, Hamburg Bulk Carriers GMBH, whereby the Tribunal, by a majority of 2:1, allowed the claims of the Respondent and held that the Petitioner had to pay the Respondent a total amount of US $ 210,499.18 together with interest @ 10% per annum from 4th July 2001 till payment or its realization. The counter claims of the Petitioner were rejected. Backg...
Directorate of Revenue Vs. Arun Kumar Juneja and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl.Rev.P. 670/2010 Date of Decision: 14.02.2012 DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE ...... PETITIONER Through: Mr.Satish Aggarwala, Advocate with Mr.Sushil, Advocate. Versus ARUN KUMAR JUNEJA and ORS. ...... RESPONDENTS Through: Ms.Sonam Nagrath, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J..1. The present revision petition is against the order of the LD ACMM discharging the Respondents herein under section 245 CrPC..2. The brief facts necessitating the present revision petition are that acting on intelligence that large quantity of ball bearing were being smuggled from Nepal into Delhi, the DRI kept surveillance in and around Delhi. On 04.08.1992, the DRI intercepted a truck in Delhi containing empty glass bottles and brought the same to the DRI office where it was rummaged in the presence of two independent witnesses. The panchnama was prepared in the presence of witnesses. The driver of the truck, Shri Ghama Prasad along wit...
Air Customs Vs. Ram Chander
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl. L.P No.175/2006 Date of Decision: 14.02.2012 AIR CUSTOMS ...... PETITIONER Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Advocate Versus RAM CHANDER ...... Respondent Through: Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Smiriti, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J..1. This is a criminal leave petition under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 preferred by the petitioner seeking special leave to appeal against the judgment dated 11.7.2006 passed by learned ACMM whereby the accused (respondent herein) was acquitted of charge under Section 135(1) (a) of the Customs Act, 1962..2. This is a case of recovery of 24 gold biscuits from the Arrival Immigration Hall of IGI Airport on 20/01/1994. The said gold biscuits were lying below the wash-basin in the toilet for handicaps and were wrapped in brown plastic adhesive tape. When the officers, acting on specific information, reached the spot, the respondent Shri Ram Cha...
Manoj Kumar Vs. the Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, I.P. ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
Dr. Veena Chhotray: 1. The applicant, a provisionally selected candidate for the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police, is aggrieved at the cancellation of his candidature on the ground of unsuitability due to criminal antecedents. By way of relief, the OA seeks quashing the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 16.8.2010 and the Cancellation Order dated 3.2.2011 (Annex A/2 and A/1 respectively). Besides, directions to the respondents for offering appointment to the applicant for this post with all consequential benefits including seniority and monetary benefits have been sought. No interim relief in this case has been granted by the Tribunal. 2. The learned counsels Shri Ajesh Luthra and Shri Amit Anand would represent respectively the applicant and the respondents. 3. The claims in this case are being agitated in the context of a recruitment process for Delhi Police for the post of Constable (Driver) undertaken during the years 2007-2010. The applicant had been provisionally selected...
Bimla Kaushik Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Through Its Chairman- ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
Shailendra Pandey, Member (A): 1. This application has been filed by the wife of Late Shri Ram Kumar Kaushik, former Telephone Operator Staff in the MTNL, for the following reliefs: to pass an order directing the respondents to consider and grant promotion to the husband of the applicant as Junior Telephone Operator (JTO) w.e.f 1.10.2002, i.e., the date juniors to him were promoted with all consequential benefits including arrears of difference of pay and allowances and consequently to pass an order directing the respondents to revise the pensionary benefits with all consequential benefits, including the arrears with interest. any other relief which the Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, including the costs of litigation. 2. The brief facts of the case, as are relevant, are that Late Shri Ram Kumar Kaushik (husband of the applicant) joined as Wireman in the Department of Telecommunication on 11.09.1979, was promoted as Telephone Operat...
Mohan Lal Vs. Union of India : Through the General Manager, Western Ra ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
ORAL: Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. Applicant has sought direction to the respondents to reinstate him in the category of Class-IV employee in the interest of justice. 2. The brief facts, as stated by the applicant, are that he had worked as Loco Foreman with respondents No.2 and 3 from 26.11.1976 to 10.12.1985. On 4.1.1977 applicant was sent to DMO, Jaipur, for medical examination for A-1 category but he could not succeed. He got himself treated through the Eye Specialist but his medical examination was not re-done in spite of his representation. Applicant has given many representations to the respondents for reinstatement but no order has been passed by the respondents. Applicant along with other employees had filed OA No.122/1992 which was disposed of on 18.1.1995 by directing the applicants to give representation to the respondents within one month from the receipt of the order but applicant was not in touch with his colleagues and counsel so he was not aware about the passing...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »