Delhi Court April 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.
Mohinder Nath Sharma(Decd.) Through Lr's Vs. Ram Kumar and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ORAL: CM No.6717/2012(for exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. CM No.241/2012(for review of order) 1. This Regular First Appeal was allowed by a detailed judgment dated 22.3.2012. The judgment holds that the respondents/sellers were not only guilty of breach of contract, but were unfair in dealing with the appellant under the contract. After finding the respondents/sellers guilty of breach of contract, this Court accepted the appeal and decreed the suit for specific performance by applying the provision of Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 2. After applying the provision of Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, this Court also, inter alia, observed as under: “27. Accordingly, while accepting the appeal and setting aside the impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated 25.1.2003, it would be required that a competent person be appointed to measure the exact area of land which is in the possession o...
Raja Bahadur Motilal Poona Mills Ltd. Vs. Ruby Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral) 1 These two petitions have impugned two different orders i.e. orders dated 02.12.2004 and 22.10.2005. Vide order dated 02.12.2004, the eviction petition filed by the landlady Ms. Ruby Singh and Ms. Abha Narain seeking eviction of the tenant Raja Bahadur Motilal Poona Mills Ltd. had been decreed; this was an ex-parte decree of eviction passed under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA). Inspite of a valid service of summons, leave to defend had not been filed within the stipulated time period of 15 days; eviction decree had accordingly followed in favour of the landlady. This is the first order which has been impugned. The second order which has been impugned is the order dated 22.10.2005. The application filed by the judgment debtor (Raja Bahadur Motilal Poona Mills Ltd.) seeking setting aside of the aforenoted ex-parte decree obtained by Ms. Ruby Singh and others had been dismissed. 2 At the outset, it has been brought to the notice of the Co...
Himachal Futuristic Communications Ltd. Vs. Uoi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL) 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 4.7.2007. The learned Single Judge by virtue of the impugned judgment has sustained the award dated 30.3.2007. 2. The background in which the present controversy has arisen is briefly as follows: 2.1 The respondent had placed an Advance Purchase Order (for short „APO‟) dated 10.9.1998 for supply of “400W TWT high power amplifier in C-band for AC” (in short equipment) on the appellant. 2.2 The APO was admittedly altered by the respondent vide communication dated 22.9.1998. It is also not in dispute that the appellant by a return communication dated 30.9.1998, accepted the alteration proposed by the respondent. It is important to note that the alteration suggested by the respondent, admittedly brought about a change qua the model of the equipment. More pertinently, the letter of alteration clearly indicated that apart from the modification suggested therein, a...
Anirudh Kumar Vs. Shalini Wig
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral): 1. A complaint filed by the complainant against the appellant/OP before District Forum (South) was dismissed in complainants defaultvide order dated 3.3.2011. The complainant thereafter filed a restoration application, which was also dismissedvide order dated 29.11.2011, on the ground that they have no jurisdiction to pass in restoration order. 2. That is what brings the complainant in appeal before this Commission. 3. We have heard Ms. Pratibha Singh, Counsel for the appellant at the admission stage in this appeal. 4. It has been consistent judicial policy to adopt an attitude for lenience in dealing with the restoration application, because the purpose of law is fulfilled, only when both the parties are heard and the case is decided on merits. The appellant/complainant has sad that his Counsel was busy in an urgent matter before Honble High Court and therefore could not appear before the District Forum when the case was called out, and during this ...
Smt. Suman Naruka Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
1. Petitioner vide this petition has prayed that respondents be directed to revive the Family Pension of the petitioner from Air Force w.e.f 27.07.2001 as well as make payment of arrears of Family Pension from 27.07.2001 onwards. She has also prayed interest @ 24% per annum w.e.f. 27.07.2001 for the period of delay in making revival of the Family Pension to the petitioner. 2. Petitioner is the widow of late CPL Naruka Narender Singh who was enrolled in the Air Force in 1972 and he was discharged from service in 1988 and was in receipt of service pension. He was reemployed in United India Insurance Company and during his reemployment he expired on 14.01.2000. 3. Petitioner applied for grant of Family Pension from United India Insurance Company. She was asked to produce No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Indian Air Force by the Insurance Company vide their letter dated 16.10.2000. Accordingly, petitioner submitted option certificate dated 11.01.2001 to draw Civil Side Pension along ...
Sunil Kumar Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Commissioner of Police, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J): 1. This Application assails show-cause notice (for short ‘SCN’) dated 14.3.2011 and order dated 11.4.2011 with regard to cancellation of the applicant’s candidature for the post of Constable (Executive) Male (in short ‘C(E)M’) and seeks directions to the respondents to issue letter of appointment to the applicant for the said post with all consequential benefits. 2. The applicant successfully cleared the selection process and was provisionally selected as C(E)M in Delhi Police during the recruitment process in the year 2009 but appointment was deferred pending character and antecedents verification. The applicant has already revealed in his application form his involvement in the criminal case being FIR No.118/2009 under Section 363/366 IPC in which he has been acquitted vide judgment dated 9.11.2009. The judgment reveals that the applicant was charged under Section 363/366 IPC along with one Arvind Kumar charged under S...
Anjali Yadav Vs. Union Public Service Commission, Shahjahan Road, New ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
S.C. Sharma, Acting Chairman: Instant Original Application has been instituted for the following reliefs: “(a) allow the Original Application; (b) Issue an appropriate order and direction, quashing condition No.b of the portion relating to documents/ certificates in Instructions and Additional Information to Candidates for Recruitment by Selection of Advertisement No.16 of 2011 issued by U.P.S.C. inviting the applications for recruitment by selection to various posts including vacancies against Item No.13 insofar as it stipulates that Candidates should note that they should attach with their applications attested/self certified copies of Degree/Diploma certificate along with mark sheets pertaining to all the academic years as proof of educational qualification claimed and that in the absence of Degree/Diploma certificate, provisional certificate along with mark sheets pertaining to all the academic years will be accepted; In the alternative (c) Allow this application and issue an...
Virendra Kumar Garg Vs. Commissioner Central Excise, Meerut Ii Opposit ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
ORAL: M.L. Chauhan: 1. The applicant has filed this OA, thereby praying for quashing the impugned orders from Annexures A-1 to A-5, i.e., the inquiry report dated 20.5.2005, disagreement note dated 19.1.2006, a second disagreement note dated 23.1.2007, disciplinary authority’s order dated 7.10.2010 and appellate authority’s order dated 14.6.2011, with a further prayer that the respondents may be directed to refund the reduced pay and allowances with arrears and also to grant him promotion to the higher post when his juniors were granted promotion in the year 2008-2009. 2. In order to decide the controversy, few facts may be noticed. The applicant was initially appointed as Data Entry Operator (DEO) in Customs and Excise Department on 10.5.1993, which post was subsequently re-designated as Tax Assistant. The applicant was issued memorandum of charge sheet dated 30.6.2004, thereby proposing to hold the inquiry against him under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The gravamen o...
Mangal Singh Rawat and Another Vs. Union of India Through Union Home S ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
ORAL: S.C. Sharma, Acting Chairman 1. The instant OA has been instituted for the following relief:- “(a) direct the Respondents to convene the DPC and consider the applicants for promotion to the post of AFO (H) and DFO (H) from the date of eligibility and, if found fit by the DPC, promote the Applicants retrospectively on notional basis to these posts and further communicate the result of the same within a period of 1 month from the date of such direction; (b) on appointment as DFO (H), to fix the seniority of the Applicants as per the years of service rendered and to grant consequential benefits; (c) award cost of litigation; and/or (d) pass any other order(s) or direction(s), which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as well as in the interest of justice.” 2. We have heard Shri Raunak Jain, Advocate for applicant and Shri Rajesh Katyal, Advocate for respondents and perused the entire facts of the case. A ...
Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Salzgitter Mannesmann International ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
Introduction 1. The Steel Authority of India Limited (‘SAIL’), in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (‘Act’), challenges the majority Award dated 27th July 2009 passed by the two of the three members of the Indian Council of Arbitration Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) upholding the claims of the Respondent, Salzgitter Manesmann International GMBH (‘SI’) and dismissing the counter claims of SAIL. Third member of the Tribunal passed a minority/dissenting award on 10th August 2009. In terms of the majority Award, SI was held entitled to a sum of Euro 1,122,785.25 (Rs.6,71,42,880) together with simple interest at 8% per annum from 5th May 2006 till the date of payment and to reimbursement of Euro 360,656.70 (Rs.2,15,67,374) together with simple interest at 8% per annum from 11th August 2006 till date of payment towards refund of the performance bond. SI was also held entitled to legal costs in the sum of Euro 20...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »