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.
Ex. Asi Pradeep Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
ANIL KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner has sought the quashing of order dated 8th April, 1998 removing him from the service on account of continuously overstaying after joining time from 29th April, 1997 without permission of the competent authority and the order dated 27th February, 1999 dismissing his appeal by the Deputy Inspector General. 2. Brief relevant facts are that the petitioner was appointed in the Central Industrial Security Forces i.e. CISF as ASI/Exe (Sports Quota) on 6th June, 1992 and was assigned number 922230059. The petitioner was given a regular posting to CISF Unit, UTPS, Ukai on 18th April, 1997 vide movement order No.E-38014/CISF/ADM/ 97/920 dated 18th April, 1997 with directions to report to his new place of posting i.e. at CISF Unit, UTPS, Ukai, after availing his normal joining time of 10 days. 3. The petitioner was to join his new unit on 29th April, 1997 (forenoon) but he failed to do so and continued overstaying from joining time. 4. The petitioner asserted tha...
Parminder Singh Vs. Radhey Shyam and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. The Appellant Parminder Singh seeks enhancement of compensation of Rs. 6,16,251/- awarded to the Appellant for having suffered injuries in a motor accident which occurred on 01.04.2007. 2. On 01.04.2007, the Appellant was proceeding in his car DL-5C-1386 from Kala Amb towards Sadhoura (Haryana). A tanker No.HR-38-C-7499 being driven by the First Respondent in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite direction and hit the Appellant’s car. On account of forceful impact, the car overturned and the tanker capsized. The Appellant suffered fracture of right femur, fracture of super condylar right femur and fracture of radius shaft right hand. As per the disability certificate Ex.PW1/1, the Doctor opined the Appellant to have suffered permanent disability to the extent of 50% in relation to his right lower limb. 3. By the impugned judgment, the Claims Tribunal found that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the First Responde...
Union of India and Others Vs. Indian Exporters Grievance Forum and Ano ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
A.K. SIKRI, ACJ 1. This intra-appeal filed by the Union of India impugns the judgment dated 05.8.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.2497 of 2008 filed by the respondents herein. By means of the said decision, the writ petition of the respondents has been allowed to a limited extent holding that the duties and entitlement of the respondent society will be computed on the basis stated in the judgment and the corresponding duty credit will be given to them by the appellants within a period of 12 weeks from the date of judgment. The dispute arose on the nature of entitlement, viz., the duty credit that may be used by the exporters earned by way of export incentive under the scheme called the Target Plus Scheme (TPS). Under the aforesaid TPS which was aimed at boosting the exports, it was decided to reward those exporters who achieved quantum growth in exports as per the target mentioned in the said scheme and were described as Star Export Ho...
Vijaya Laxmi Vs. Archaeological Survey of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)1. The present appeal impugns a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10.10.2011 in W.P. (C) 4357/2011 by which the writ petitioner (who is the appellant here), had questioned the permission granted by the respondent – Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to the second respondent to construct within 100 metres of the Humayun Tomb – a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments Act, 1958.2. The facts necessary for the purpose of this judgment are that the second respondent apparently purchased the property – A-10, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi-16 and sought for permission to construct upon it. The local authorities, such as the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) etc. were to proceed with the application for sanction of the plans, after the ASI accorded its approval. By virtue of a Notification dated 16.06.1992 of the ASI, all constructions within 100 metres of protected monuments were prohibited. Apparently, over a period of time, th...
Kiran Shoes Manufacturers Vs. Registrar of Copyrights and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
A.K. SIKRI1. Very brief yet crisp order dated 30th June, 2010 passed by the Copyright Board on an application preferred by the respondent no.2 herein under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957 is the subject matter of the present appeal. The respondent no. 2 had filed the said application for expunction of registration number A-62685/02 granted by the Registrar in favour of the appellant herein. Before we take note of the basis on which expunction of the registration was sought, it would be apposite to find out what this registration is about. The appellant which is a registered partnership firm with its office in Kathmandu, Nepal claims that it is a well established and renowned firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of sports shoes and footwear since 1990. It also boost about the excellent quality of its product which has demand in Nepal as well as in India. The goods are manufactured and marketed under the trade mark „GOLD STAR‟alongwith the side tr...
Rajeev Bakshi and Others Vs. D.R.i
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J. 1. Vide this common order Crl. M.C. No. 2638 /08, 106/09 and 3393/08 being connected matters, are being disposed of. The petitions are preferred under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing of the Complaint no. 138/2/2007 titled Shri B.K. Thapliyal v. Rajeev Verma and Ors, qua the petitioners and summoning order dated 14.12.2007 whereby the ld. ACMM took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the accused persons. 2. The above named petitioners are accused no.3, 4 and 6 respectively in the abovementioned complaint under Sections 132, 135 of the Customs Act, herein after referred to as ‘Act’. Petitioner no. 1 is the Director of M/s Seasky Cargo and Travels P. Ltd. Petitioner no.2 is the Director of M/s Borneo Shipping Lines Ltd. and petitioner no.3 is the Chairman of M/s United Liner Agencies Pvt. Ltd. The allegations against the petitioners are that they have assisted accused no. 1 Rajeev Verma (proprietor of M/s Lindt. Exports and M/s High Tech Engineers...
Newdelhi Municipal Council Vs. National Building Construction Corporat ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
1. The New Delhi Municipal Council (‘NDMC’) has in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) challenged an award dated 4th October 2001 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator in the dispute arising between the Petitioner and the Respondent, National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd. (‘NBCC’) arising out of the award of the work of construction of the New Delhi City Centre, NBCC Phase-II, by the Petitioner to the NBCC on 18th August 1994. 2. The date of commencement of the project was 2nd September 1994 and the scheduled date of completion was 1st September 1997. The stipulated date of completion was extended from time to time till 30th April 2001. 3. The disputes arising between the parties were referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Chairman of the NDMC on 16th June 1998. He was required to adjudicate eighteen claims raised by the NBCC. He gave an interim award on 21st September 2000. It is stated ...
Raj Kumar and Others Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR no. 806/1998 dated 07.11.1998 registered at PS Ashok Vihar u/s 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioners.2. It is further submitted that respondent no. 2 thereafter amicably settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR and consequent to the settlement, marriage between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 has been dissolved by mutual consent vide decree of divorce dated 17.04.2000.3. It is further submitted that petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 have already remarried with the respective persons and living happily with their spouses.4. Respondent no. 2 is personally present in the court and has been identified by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that she has settled all the disputes qua the aforesaid FIR and has already married to someone and living happily. She has no objection if the FIR mentioned above thereto is quashed.5. On the other hand, learned APP submits th...
S.P. Bhadola and Others Vs. A.i.i. M.S and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
1. The judgment will dispose of an appeal directed against the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 23.04.2004 allowing writ petition No.7404/2001 and consequently quashing the appointment of the present appellants to the post of Medical Social Worker-Grade II, in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred as “the Institute”).2. Briefly the essential facts are that the appellants are Post Graduates (M.A.) in Sociology. They had applied and were selected on temporary appointment basis for projects under the aegis of Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) sometime in 1991-1992. When the ICMR employed the appellants, the notified qualifications for the post, designated “Social Worker” were “M.A. in Sociology or B.A. and Diploma in social work or Medical Social Work”. The appellants continued at ICMR in its project; on 04.01.1995 the appellants (who had been working from 18.12.1988, 01.08.1990 and 11.05.1991) w...
Rajesh Kumar @ Raju and Others Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral)1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR No. 837/2006 dated 12.08.2006, a case under Section 498-A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered at P.S. Paschim Vihar, New Delhi against the petitioners, on the complaint of respondent No.2.2. It is further submitted that thereafter the matter has amicably been settled between the parties.3. Consequent to the settlement, the marriage between the Respondent No.2 and the petitioner No.1 has been dissolved by mutual consent divorce decree dated 13.12.2010.4. Ld. Counsel further submits that the respondent No.2/complainant does not wish to pursue the case, therefore the FIR mentioned above and all emanating proceedings thereto may be quashed.5. Respondent No.2 is personally present with her counsel. She has been identified by ASI Joginder Singh, IO of the case. Ld. Counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that she has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR and pursuant to the aforesaid settl...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »