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.
Tara Chandra Sharma Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2012
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J: 1. This writ petition impugns, the order dated 31.12.2008 of the Municipal Taxation Tribunal dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner, as also the order dated 02.06.2009 dismissing the application for review sought by the petitioner. 2. The respondent MCD vide notice dated 05.01.2006 demanded from the petitioner a sum of Rs.46,668/- towards property tax of Flat No.288, Supreme Cooperative Group Housing Society, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.5616/2006 in this Court impugning the said demand. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 17.04.2006 by remanding the matter to the respondent MCD for fresh determination; while doing so, it was also observed “if petitioner seeks assessment under Unit Area Method said request would be dealt with as per law.” 3. The Assistant Assessor and Collector of the respondent MCD vide order dated 11.01.2007 assessed the annual value of the said flat at Rs.35,970/- in a...
Ex. Hav. Mohinder Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2012
1. This suit was filed by the plaintiff/petitioner before the Senior Civil Judge, Delhi and it was transferred to this Tribunal after its formation. 2. Plaintiff vide this suit has prayed that a decree in the sum of Rs. 75,000/- with costs, pendente lite and future interest at 18% per annum be passed in his favour and against the defendants/respondents jointly and severally. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff retired on 31.12.1998 from Indian Army as Havildar from 520 ASC BN C/o 99 APO and he furnished with defendant the account number 1488 of his bankers i.e. Punjab and Sind Bank, Branch Singhola, P.O. Tikri Khurd. The plaintiff was entitled to the retirement dues and PPO in this regard was sent to the Defendant no. 4, Punjab and Sind Bank vide ASC Records Letter No. 13863068 L/SP 4507/Pen dated 31.12.1998. 4. The said PPO was incomplete and invalid as the same was not duly signed by the concerned officer and it was unsigned. The bankers did not honour this PPO and ...
Dibban Lal Sharma Vs. Govt. of Nct Delhi Through the Chief Secretary, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-2012
ORAL: G. Gerorge Paracken: 1. The grievance of the applicant in this Original Application is that he was promoted as Vice Principal only w.e.f. 07.01.2011 vide the impugned Annexure A-1 order of the same date while his batch mates in the grade of Part-time teachers like Shri Gian Bir Singh, Shri Munna Pandey, Shri Jaipal Singh and Shri Santosh Kumar were promoted as Vice Principals much earlier vide the respondent’s Annexure A-13 order dated 31.12.2008. 2. The brief facts in this case are that the applicant was initially appointed as regular Part-time Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) (English) vide order dated 24.08.1981. There were other similarly placed persons also who have been appointed as Part-time PGTs/Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs). In this regard, the applicant has annexed a copy of the respondent’s Annexure A/3 letter No. F 13-6 (8)/AE/80/5960 dated 26.11.1981 indicating that the following Part-time teachers of the Govt. Senior Secondary School, Lajpat Nagar, New Del...
Munnu Lal Mishra Vs. Commissioner Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan 18-inst ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-2012
ORAL: S.C. Sharma, Acting Chairman: 1. The instant Original Application has been instituted for the following reliefs:- “A. Direct Respondents No.3, Director Education Delhi to relieve the applicant forthwith, with permission to keep lien. B. Direct Director of Education Delhi to settle all accounts in respect of salary payment etc. in the grade of Principal forthwith; C. Direct Respondents No.1, Commissioner KVS, New Delhi not to cancel applicant’s selection and extend the joining time beyond 9.4.2012 to join after release by Director Education; D. Pay cost of the Original Application; E. Pass any other Order/s that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. We have heard Shri Ranvir Singh, learned Advocate for the applicant and perused the entire facts of the case. A very innocuous prayer has been made in the OA directing the Respondent No.3, Director of Education, Government of NCT Delhi to relieve the applicant forthwith ...
Kala @ Mukesh Kumar and Others Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-2012
SURESH KAIT, J (Oral) CRL. M.A. 4102/2012 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL. M.C. 1161/2012 1 Notice issued. 2 Ld. APP accepts notice on behalf of State. 3 Respondents No. 2 and 3 are present in the court today. 4 With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the instant petition is taken up for final disposal. 5 Vide the instant petition, the petitioners have sought to quash FIR No.80/2011 registered, for the offences punishable under Sections 354/323/ 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 at P.S. Baba Haridass, on complaint of respondent No. 2 against petitioners. 6 Further submits that, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties with the intervention of family members and respectable members of society, since both the parties reside in the same locality. 7 Respondent No. 2 and 3 are personally present in the court today. They have been duly identified by IO/SI Nar Singh. 8 Respondents No.2 and 3 submit that the matter has been settled, therefore,...
Rosy George and Others Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-2012
SURESH KAIT, J (Oral) 1 Notice issued. 2 Ld. APP accepts notice on behalf of State. 3 Mr. Sandeep Kamar, ld. Adv. accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. 4 With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the instant petition is taken up for final disposal. 5 Vide the instant petition, the petitioners have sought to quash FIR No.204/2008, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420/468/471 Indian Penal Code, 1860 at P.S. Daryaganj, Delhi. 6 Further submits that vide MOU dated 03.12.2011, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. Therefore, respondent No.2/ complainant is no more interested to pursue the case further. 7 Respondent No. 2 is personally present in the court today with his counsel, Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate, who duly identifies him. 8 Ld. counsel for respondent No. 2 upon instructions submits that the matter has been settled and the respondent No. 2 does not want to pursue the matter and has no objection if the FIR is quashed. ...
Chob Singh Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-2012
VIPIN SANGHI, J 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner namely, Chob Singh under Article 226 of the constitution of India to claim compensation of Rs. 10 Lakhs for the death of his only son, Nand Kishore due to the alleged negligence of the respondents Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Delhi Jal Board (DJB). 2. The petitioner is the father of an unfortunate boy who died on 14.04.2009 by falling into a sewer tank. The petitioner claims to be a three wheeler auto driver. His family consisted of his wife (already dead), daughter (mentally and physically handicapped) and Nand Kishore (now deceased). 3. The case of the petitioner is that his son, Nand Kishore along with his friend, Rahul went to deliver lunch to the maternal uncle of Rahul, at one of the pumping stations of the respondent/DJB located at sector 7, Dwarka. The sewage pumping station is a prohibited place and the general public is not allowed to enter the premises without permission since it is a risky and an unsafe pla...
Smt. Sona Devi Vs. Smt. Nathia and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-2012
P.K.BHASIN, J The present petition has been filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (‘the Rent Act’ in short) by the petitioner-landlady against the order dated 16.08.2003 passed by the Additional Rent Controller(‘the Controller’ in short) dismissing the eviction petition filed by her against the legal heirs of her deceased tenant late Shri Mithan Lal under Section 14-D and 14(1)(e) of the Rent Act of in respect of a part of property bearing no.4837, Laddoo Ghati, Paharganj, Delhi(hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the tenanted premises’). 2. The petitioner-landlady had filed the eviction petition in the year 1993 against the respondents by pleading the following facts in para no. 18(a) of the eviction petition:- “(1)………The premises are required by the petitioner for her own residence including the residence of her family members dependent upon her. The petitioner has no other reasonably suitable residen...
Jai Raj Vs. Jai Gopal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-2012
VEENA BIRBAL, J (ORAL) CM No. 6203/2012 (exemption) Exemption as prayed is allowed, subject to just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. FAO No. 152/2012 1. This appeal has been filed against impugned order dated 17.01.2012 passed by the learned ADJ, Delhi whereby application of the appellant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under:- The respondent herein i.e. plaintiff before the learned trial court has filed a suit for possession and mesne profits in respect of property bearing No. 107, Sunehri Bagh, Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd., Plot No. 15, Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi-110085 against the appellant herein i.e. defendant before the learned trial court. The respondent/plaintiff had valued the said suit for the relief of possession as Rs. 27000/- P.M. x 12. In the said suit, appellant/defendant had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the su...
Raje Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-2012
ANIL KUMAR, J 1. The petitioner has sought the quashing of punishment order dated 30th April, 1997,the order dated 26th June, 1998 dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner and the order dated 7th August, 1999 passed by the appellate authority. The petitioner has further sought his reinstatement with full service benefits. 2. Brief facts to comprehend the controversies are that the petitioner was detailed for election duty in Uttar Pradesh. While camping at CISF Unit, IISCO Burnpur certain officers had mistaken the alleged toy pistol of the petitioner to be a real pistol, which led to an incident due to which reason the petitioner was ordered to be apprehended, as the petitioner had become violent under the influence of liquor, he was therefore, taken to the police station in the night of 13th September, 1996. 3. The petitioner was thereafter released on bail on the next day, and after trial in the Court of SDJM Asansol on 16th September, 1996 the petitioner was convicte...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »