Delhi Court March 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.
Prof. Ramesh Chandra Vs. University of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. The petitioner, earlier a Professor in the respondent Delhi University, has filed this writ petition: (i) impugning Para 6 of the Annexure (providing Form of Agreement of Service for University teachers) to Ordinance XI of the respondent No.1 Delhi University. The said Para 6 empowers the Executive Council of the University to summarily determine the engagement of a teacher on the ground of misconduct; (ii) impugning the Resolutions dated 17.10.2005 and 21.03.2007 of the Executive Council of the University. Vide Resolution dated 17.10.2005, decision was taken, A) not to allow the petitioner to hold any administrative position in the University; B) to issue show cause notice to the petitioner for, a) at the time of re-joining Delhi University post deputation, suppressing information of his removal from the post of Vice Chancellor (VC) of Bundelkhand University, Jhansi; b) unauthorizedly assuming the office of the Director, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Center for Biomedic...
Yashpal Kumar Vs. Bhola Nath Khanna and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
1. By the present petition, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 18th July, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge setting aside the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 28th March, 2009 whereby he had dismissed the complaint of Respondent No. 1 and refused to issue summons to the Petitioner herein for offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the impugned order was passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision without issuing notice to the Petitioner and thus the same is liable to be set aside on account of the fact that the same is in violation of Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. and principles of natural justice. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge has gravely prejudiced the Petitioner. In this regard reliance is placed on Mohd. Afzal and others vs. Noor Nisha Begum and another, 1997 (2) Crimes 493. It is further contended that the daughter of the Petitioner fil...
Suresh Kumar and Another Vs. Saroj Atal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
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 29.1.2011 decreeing the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for possession and mesne profits with respect to the property being Flat No. T-1, 3rd Floor (Front Side), P-92A, Mayur Vihar Phase-I, Delhi. The impugned judgment is an ex parte judgment as the appellants/defendants failed to appear in the suit in spite of service. I am informed that the appellants/defendants had filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the impugned ex parte judgment dated 29.1.2011, however, the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC has been dismissed, and the counsel for the appellants/defendants admits that the order dismissing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC has not been appealed against. The scope of the present appeal is thus confined to deciding the merits of the im...
Ravindra Kumar Chandolia Vs. Cbi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J. 1. The present writ petition under Article 226 read with 227 of Constitution of India seeks to assail the order of the learned trial court dated 19/12/2011 whereby an application under Section 91 Cr.PC moved by the petitioner for summoning of some documents was dismissed. 2. The petitioner herein along with other co-accused persons was facing trial for offences under Section 120B IPC read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as “PC Act”), on the allegations of criminal conspiracy and criminal misconduct in respect of allotment of Letters of Intent (LOI), Unified Access Services (UAS) Licenses and Spectrum by Department of Telecommunication (DoT). 3. In the abovesaid case, the petitioner was arrested by CBI on 2.2.2011 at New Delhi. After investigation, the CBI filed a charge sheet on 02/04/2011 against twelve accused persons including the present petitioner, a public servant of the Joint Secre...
In the Matter of Jitender Yadav Vs. Dda
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL) 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions to the respondent/DDA to refund the entire registration amount after deducting surcharge as per clause 12 of the Brochure pertaining to the „DDA Housing Scheme, 2008‟, alongwith interest payable @ 15% from the date when the petitioner had become entitled for the refund. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the year 2008, the respondent/DDA had floated the „DDA Housing Scheme, 2008‟. As per the Brochure, if a successful applicant wanted to surrender or seek cancellation of the allotted flat, he was required to pay cancellation charges in terms of Clause 12, which is reproduced hereinbelow:- “12. SURRENDER/CANCELLATION The successful applicants shall have the option to surrender the flats before the issue of the possession letter. Flat will be automatically cancelled in case payments are not made within the prescribed period. Now show c...
M/S Pandit Construction Co Vs. D.D.A. and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. (ORAL) 1. Both these appeals can be disposed of by this common judgment as facts are similar and same issues are involved. For the sake of convenience, reference is made to the facts of RFA No.123/2004. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondents/DDA being the amount alleged to be wrongfully withheld under a contract including from encashment of bank guarantee given as security. The Trial Court has dismissed the suit by holding that there were defective works and for such defective works, as per Clause 29 of the contract, respondents/DDA were entitled to withhold the amounts. 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff was awarded work of construction of EWS and LIG houses in Bindapur, Dwarka and with respect to which agreements No.51/EE/WD-1/DDA/1991-92 and 9/EE/WD-6/DDA/1995-96 were executed between the parties. It was pleaded that the work was completed on 5.6.1994 and co...
income Tax Officer Vs. Dg Housing Projects Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
SANJIV KHANNA,J. (ORAL) The present appeal by the Revenue impugns order dated 31.2.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“Tribunal”, for short) in the case of D G Housing Projects Ltd. and relates to assessment year 2004-05. 2. Having heard counsel for the parties, the following substantial question of law is framed : “Whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3. The assessee is a company and for the assessment year in question had filed return on 31.10.2004 declaring taxable income of Rs.3,54,712/-. 4. During the year in question the assessee had sold an immoveable property (unfortunately, the details of the said property are not mentioned in the appeal and in the annexures i.e. the assessment order, order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) and the Tribunal) and had claimed long term capital loss of Rs.35.71 lacs after indexation....
Vijay Saraogi and Others Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) 1. Vide order dated 17.08.2011 it is recorded as under:- “1. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that she has not received any instructions from respondent No.2 since long time. She had issued a notice to respondent No.2 informing him that in case no instructions are received, she would be withdrawing from the brief as also intimating the next date of hearing i.e. 17th August, 2011. Order dated 31st May, 2011 shows that statement to this effect was made on that date but since notice was not placed on record, the matter was adjourned for today. Photocopy of notice and postal receipt have been placed on record. 2. Since respondent No.2 has stopped giving instructions to the counsel, she is discharged from the brief. Date of hearing has already been informed by the counsel through the notice. 3. Accordingly, I do not deem it fit to issue the court notice to respondent No.2. 4. Respondent No.2 is proceeded ex-parte.” 2. Mr.Mohit Mathur, learned ...
Gurbax Singh and Another Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
1. By this petition, the Petitioners challenge the order dated 28th April, 2010 whereby the learned Trial Court directed framing of charge for offences under Sections 325/506/34 IPC against the Petitioners. The grievance of the Petitioners is that even as per the complaint it is alleged that the Petitioners slapped and threatened the Complainant Bharat Bhushan due to which blood started oozing out from his ear on which they ran away from the spot, thus, at best the Petitioners can be charged for offences under Sections 323/506 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that the opinion of the doctor that there is perforation in the ear and thus the injury was grievous in nature is incorrect. Grievous injuries have been defined under Section 320 IPC and in case the injury falls in anyone of those categories, the accused can be charged for having committed the offence of causing grievous injury. From the facts on record, it is evident that there was no intention to cause a grie...
Monika Garg Vs. Vilamb Garg
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
VEENA BIRBAL, J. (ORAL) 1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged order dated 07.09.2011 passed by learned ADJ, Delhi by which her application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been disposed of. 2. Respondent/husband has filed a divorce petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Act, against petitioner/wife seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The said petition is pending adjudication before the learned trial court. During the pendency of the said petition, petitioner/wife had moved an application under Section 24 of the Act for the grant of maintenance for herself and her two children, namely, Master Nikhil Garg and Kumari Mehar Garg, aged about 16 years and 10 years respectively, born from the wedlock of the parties. In the said application, petitioner/wife has alleged that her husband is a ma...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »