Delhi Court February 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ravinder and Others Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) Crl. M.A. 2604/2012 (exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.Crl. M.C. 735/2012 1. Notice issued.2. Ld. APP accepts notice on behalf of State / respondent no. 1.3. Respondent no. 2 is present in person.4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR no. 551 dated 20.12.2009 case under Section 324/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent no. 2 at PS-New Ashok Nagar. Crl.M.C.No.735/2012 Page 2 of 45. It is further submitted that during investigation, Section 326 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 also added.6. Ld. Counsel further submits, thereafter, vide settlement dated 10.07.2011 arrived at between the parties by which petitioners and respondent no. 2 have compromised all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR. Therefore, respondent no. 2 is no more interested to pursue the case further.7. Respondent no. 2 is personally present in the court. IO of the case HC La...
Sadhu Ram Gupta and Others Vs. Golden Forests (India) Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. The company Golden Forests (India) Ltd. (GFIL) was incorporated in the year 1987 and its subsidiary companies Golden Tourist Resorts and Developers Ltd. and Golden Projects Ltd. were incorporated in the year 1991 and 1996 respectively. GFIL and its subsidiary and associate companies floated a number of schemes and they successfully collected large sums of money from the public with effect from the year 1991 onwards. The Syal family comprising of Late Sh. Amrit Lal Syal, his son Late Sh. R.K. Syal, his daughter Ms. Pamila Syal and their other family members were solely managing the affairs of the Golden Group of Companies. Late Sh. R.K. Syal was the Managing Director of the GFIL and Ms. Pamila Syal was the Managing Director of Golden Projects Ltd. Late Sh. Amrit Lal Syal was the Legal Advisor and also holding other important positions in the company.2. GFIL and its other subsidiary and associate companies ran into rough weather in the year 1998 and criminal inv...
Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd and Another Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
A.K. SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE 1. In both these writ petitions challenge laid is to the same provision, namely, definition of “Food”contained in Section 2 (v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the PFA Act”). This Section reads as under:-“(v) “food” means any article used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs and water and includes-(a) any article which ordinarily enters into, or is used in the composition or preparation of, human food,(b) any flavouring matter or condiments, and(c) any other article which the Central Government may, having regard to its use, nature, substance or quality, declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, as food for the purpose of this Act;”2. As is clear from the above, in clause (a) and (b) specific nature of articles which can be treated as “Food”are mentioned. At the same time, clause (c) empowers the Central Government to issu...
Madhu Arora Vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co Ltd and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
JUDGMENTG. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The Appellant seeks enhancement of compensation of Rs.4,17,504/- awarded for the death of her son Manoj, who died in a motor accident which occurred on 07.12.2006.2. In the Claim petition filed by the Appellant, it was claimed that the deceased was working as a Disco Jockey and was earning ` 15,000/- per month. In the absence of any documentary evidence with regard to deceased’s income or his profession, the Tribunal took the minimum wages of an unskilled person, added 50% towards inflation, applied multiplier of 13 to compute the loss of dependency.3. It was specifically stated in Para 23 of the Claim Petition that the deceased was working as Disco Jockey and was earning ` 15,000/- per month. In the written statement filed by Respondents No.2 and 3 i.e. owner and the driver and the Respondent No.1 i.e. Insurer these facts are not traversed specifically or by implication. These are, therefore, deemed to be admitted.4. Although the Appellant did ...
Gulab Chaudhary Vs. Govinder Singh Dahiya Andanother
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated 15.1.2010 dismissing the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff/sister for declaration, possession and injunction with respect to the property of the father, late Sh. Bhagwan Singh.2. The appellant/plaintiff in the plaint pleaded that she was the daughter of late Sh. Bhagwan Singh and was entitled to one-fourth share in the suit property bearing no. 6301/1A(2), Kamla Nagar, Delhi. The appellant/plaintiff/sister also prayed for possession of the suit property to the extent of her one-fourth share. Direction was also sought against the defendant no.2/respondent no.2/Municipal Corporation of Delhi to mutate one-fourth share of the property in the name of the appellant/plaintiff, and injunction was prayed for restraining the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 from transferring etc the suit p...
Dharampal and Another Vs. Meena Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral) 1. The judgment impugned before this Court is dated 18.12.2009. The eviction petition filed by the landlord had been decreed; the application seeking leave to defend which had been filed by the tenant on 18.03.2009 was declined to be taken on record as the Court was of the view that it was not filed within the stipulated period of 15 days of service which in this case the Court had noted to be as 08.10.2008. The service of 08.10.2008 was admittedly a service by affixation.2. The contention of the petitioner in the trial Court was that the summons had not been duly served upon him and that is why the application seeking leave to defend could not be filed in time.3. Record shows that on 02.06.2008 summons were directed to be issued under Schedule III of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) for 25.09.2008. On 25.09.2008 notice was again ordered upon the respondent under Schedule III of the DRCA; the report of service of the earlier summons sent by ordinary process a...
M/S Maharaja Minerals Rep. by Its Managing Partner N.Janakrajan Vs. Ta ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
This application is filed seeking to direct the Respondents to inspect the applicants unit and permit the applicant to operate the unit which was closed on 25.6.2010. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) after inspecting the unit found certain deficiencies and directed the applicant to rectify with the same. Since the applicant had not complied, the TNPCB invoked its power under Section 31-A of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and directed to close down the unit and directed the Assistant Engineer to stop supply of electricity with immediate effect. It appears the applicant had made several representations requesting the TNPCB to re- inspect the unit since he had complied with the deficiencies pointed out earlier. As there was no response, this application is filed. The application had come up on 18.10.2011, 23.11.2011, 18.12.2011. On 19.1.2012 reply was filed by R-1 and R-2. However, they failed to reply para 10 of the Application No. 22 of 2011 which read...
M/S Amman Plastics Rep. by Its Proprietor V. Eswaran Vs. Tamil Nadu Po ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
This application is filed seeking a direction to R-1 and R-2 to inspect the unit of the applicant and consider the representations made by him dated 27.8.2010 and pass orders giving consent to operate the Unit. It appears the applicant is running a small plastic recycling unit at Door No. 1/1, Ramamurthy Street, Raghupathinaicken Palayam, Erode-2, Tamil Nadu. The implead party petitioner here filed Writ Petition before the Honble High Court of Madras in WP No. 24551 of 2009 and the same was disposed of with a direction by the High Court of Madras on 18.1.2010 which reads as under: In our view, these are all aspects which need to be looked into at higher level. We, therefore, request the Chairman, TNPCB to nominate a senior officer, who will inspect the site and make a report to the Chairman, TNPCB. We also request the District Collector, Erode to make a report to the Chairman, TNPCB as to whether any planning permission/sanction has been obtained from the local authorities for the runn...
Ramesh Lal Madan Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2012
M.L. CHAUHAN: 1. The applicant has filed this OA thereby praying for the following reliefs: “I. A appropriate order or directions thereby- ii. Quashing the impugned action and the impugned order dated 07.03.2007 of the respondent and to direct the respondent to grant the applicant the second-up gradation in the pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000/- w.e.f. 09.08.1999 and to re fix his basic pay in the said pay-scale accordingly and pay him all the consequential benefits. II. Any other, order or direction or such further orders or directions as this Hon’ble court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. As can be seen from the prayer clause, the grievance of the applicant is regarding office order dated 7.3.2007 (Annexure A-1) whereby the earlier office order dated 2.2.2005 in which the benefit of Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme was given to the applicant w.e.f. 9.8.1999 was modified and the benefit was extended w.e.f. 9.1.2000 instead of 9.8.19...
Madan Pal Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Urban Devel ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2012
ORAL: M.L. Chauhan, J. 1. The applicant has filed this OA against the impugned order 25.3.2009 (Annexure A-1) passed by the disciplinary authority, order dated 11.8.2009 passed by the appellate authority whereby the appeal of the applicant was rejected and order dated 30.3.2011 (Annexure A-3) dismissing the review application, and has prayed that these impugned orders may be quashed and set aside. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the major penalty proceeding was initiated against the applicant under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1964 (for short ‘Rules 1964’) by issuing a charge sheet dated vide OM dated 28.12.2007. Allegations against the applicant were that he misbehaved with one Smt. Kumud Gautam, LDC and created panic at working place and spoiled the official decorum and discipline. Inquiry was held and the charges against the applicant were proved. Ultimately the disciplinary authority vide impugned order dated 25.3.2009 (Annexure A-1), for the reasons record...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »