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.
Ajay Gupta Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2012
SURESH KAIT, J: 1. The instant petition is being filed against the impugned order dated 16.08.2011, whereby, notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. has been framed against the petitioner. 2. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has sought to set aside the Notice dated 16.08.2011 and consequent proceedings thereof for the offences punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. 3. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the complaint, the petitioner and Deepika Mittal (Registered Consumer) were made respondent/ accused. In the said complaint the allegations made against the petitioner in para 3 is reproduced as under:- “3. That there is no other electricity connection installed at the said property of the petitioner, but the complainant has been wrongly alleging and sending bills in respect of the connection having „K. No. 2541C3240137‟, when at the time of the purchase of the said property the petitioner did not find any such connection working ...
Durga Builders P.Ltd Vs. Motor and General Finance Ltd and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2012
S.RAVINDRA BHAT 1. The appellant (hereinafter referred to variously as “Durga Builders” or “the defendant”) is aggrieved by the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge dated 06.11.2007 in CS(OS) No.612/2001 by which an application preferred by the plaintiff (hereinafter referred as “MGF” or “the respondent”) was allowed. 2. The brief facts are that MGF filed a suit for recovery of ` 3,56,82,220/- under Order XXXIV of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. MGF, in its plaint claimed that it had given three Inter Corporate Deposits (hereinafter referred as “ICDs”) to Durga Builders for a sum of ` 1 Crore, ` 1 Crore, and ` 50 Lakhs respectively on various dates i.e., (29.06.1996 (at 30% per annum), 07.02.1997 (at RFA(OS) No.88/2007 Page 2 27% per annum) and 13.05.1997 (at 22% per annum)). The plaintiff further alleged that Durga Builders and one M/s Sonal Developers Pvt. Ltd. created on the dates of grant of ICDs i.e., 29.06.199...
R.N. Sahni and Another Vs. the Financial Commissioner and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2012
ORDER 1. Aggrieved by non-reservation of their farm house sanctioned in pre-consolidation Khasra No. 763/2, 765/1 and 766, falling in post-consolidation Khasra No. 33/2 and 33/9, petitioners had preferred a statutory revision before the Financial Commissioner, Delhi in the year 1994 raising challenge to the repartition carried in the revenue estate of Village- Kapasehra, Delhi during the year 1988 was raised without filing objections to the Draft Scheme, prepared by the Consolidation Officer in the year 1987. 2. Financial Commissioner, Delhi, vide impugned order of 6th February, 1995, has dismissed petitioners' revision petition holding that it is borne out from the copy of karvai register that petitioners have been allotted post-consolidation area as per their recorded demand, that is to say, there was no deficiency in the allotment of the land to the petitioners in lieu of their pre-consolidation holdings and if, 1 bigha and 18 biswas of land in Khasra No.33/2 and 33/9 is added to t...
Sumit Tandon Vs. Cbi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2012
1. The Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in RC No. 220 2012 E 0001 under Section 420/465/468/471/ IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short the PC Act) registered by the CBI. 2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner applied for an anticipatory bail before the Learned Special Judge, Delhi but the same was dismissed on the ground that the Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the anticipatory bail application. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Court at Delhi only has jurisdiction to try the offence and thus the learned Special Judge erred in rejecting the anticipatory bail application for want of territorial jurisdiction. The FIR by CBI has been registered at Delhi. The Petitioner has been asked to produce documents at Delhi and the treasury from which the money has been embezzled is also at Delhi. Hence, even though the copy of the FIR has been filed by the CBI and the accused are ...
A.R. Banerjee Vs. R.S. Verma and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2012
PRATIBHA RANI, J: 1. The appellant, A.R.Banerjee has impugned the order dated 16.07.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.14090/2009 whereby six months‟time was granted to the appellant to obtain requisite permission for using a part of the ground floor for banking purposes and the basement for a coaching centre; needless to state the permission had to be from the competent authority, which as we were given to understand is the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. As per the order, on appellant‟s failure to do the needful, the Competent Authority was given liberty to take appropriate action as per law. 2. The directions have been issued on a writ petition filed by the respondent who owns the second floor of the building in question. 3. Relating back to the year 2001, we note that the appellant the allottee of plot No.A-100, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi, ad-measuring 320 sq.yd., entered into a collaboration agreement with respondent No.1 Sh.R.S.Verma, to develop s...
Raj Singh Vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2012
JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED (ORAL) 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 09.08.2011 passed in OA 3308/2010 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dismissed the petitioner’s said original application. 2. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner had challenged the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 19.04.2007 and also the order of the Appellate Authority dated 16.12.2008. By virtue of the order dated 19.04.2007, the Disciplinary Authority had imposed a penalty of reduction of pay upon the petitioner for a period of two years with the further direction that he would not earn any increment during the said period of two years and that the same would have the effect of postponing his future increments. 3. The appellate order dated 16.12.2008 had confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner also sought revision and the same had been rejected by the Commissioner on 04.06.2010. The said orders were passed upon a charges...
Pawan Kumar and Others Vs. Govt. of Nct Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J: 1. In the year 2007, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (respondent No.1) enacted the ‘Delhi Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-Exploitative Fee and Other Measures to Ensure Equity and Excellence) Act, 2007’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The Preamble of the Act reads as under:- “An Act to provide for prohibition of capitation fee, regulation of admission, fixation of non-exploitative fee, allotment of seats to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other socially and economically backward classes and other measures to ensure equity and excellence in professional education in the National Capital Territory of Delhi and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.” 2. Being relevant for the present decision, the applicable provisions of Section 6 of the Act may also be noted. They read as under:- “6. (1) The G...
Dunlop India Ltd. Vs. Bank of Baroda and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2012
ORDER 1. Alleging discrimination and bias against the Estate Officer, order of 20th July, 2010 evicting the petitioner from 1382.26 sq.ft. space on 7th floor of Bank of Baroda building at 16, Parliament Street, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the subject premises) was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner by preferring a statutory appeal under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, which stands dismissed vide impugned order of 14th December, 2011. 2. Undisputed facts as noted in the impugned order are that petitioner's lease on the subject premises was last extended with effect from 1st June, 1986 for a period of five years and vide respondent's Communication of 22nd January, 1990, petitioner was called upon to clear the arrears of lease money, due since July, 1988. Having failed to clear the arrears of `21,68,399.52 p., 'notice to quit' of 23rd May, 2006 was served by the respondent - bank upon the petitioner, who had responded to it, by expressin...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Ran Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2012
JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, ACJ. (ORAL) 1. On the allegation that the respondent workman unauthorizedly absented himself from duty with effect from 14.08.1986, the appellant treated the respondent workman as deemed to have resigned from service vide order dated 24.03.1987 by invoking the provisions of Clause 14(10)(b) of the DRTA (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952. The respondent workman challenged this action of the appellant by raising the industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court and ultimately it resulted in award dated 16.07.2003 vide which the deemed resignation was held to be invalid on the ground that if the respondent workman was unauthorizedly absent from duty, he could have been proceeded against departmentally and provisions of Clause 14(10)(b) of the DRTA Regulations could not have been invoked. To arrive at the said conclusion, the Labour Court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in D.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. (1993) 3 ...
Manohar Singh Vs. Ntpc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2012
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J: 1. The petitioner appears in person. He retired from the respondent organization on 31st August, 2003. He has filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondent to promote him to the next higher post of Manager (Safety) at the E-5 level, with effect from 1st January, 2002 and to pay him all consequential benefits, including retiral benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) on 28th January, 1982 as Supervisor Grade- II. In 1986, on the request of the General Manager (Korba), the petitioner agreed to work in the Safety Department, where he received various honours and appreciations from the respondent for his performance. He was promoted as Deputy Manager (Safety) at the E-4 level in 1999, and was transferred from NTPC (Kawas) to BTPS/NTPC (Badarpur) in the same year. 3. By a memorandum, dated 23rd November, 2001, the General Manager Shri P.P. Singh, acting as the Disciplinary Authority, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »