Delhi Court April 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.
Hari Kishore Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
P.K.BHASIN, J. 1. The appellant is the unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for permanent injunction(reference to him hereinafter shall be made as „the plaintiff‟). He was allotted one shed no. 8, B-45, Jhilmil (Tahirpur), Shadara, Delhi on lease by the respondents under a scheme meant for denotified Tribes vide allotment letter dated 09.09.1988. Thereafter the plaintiff started his business of auto parts in that shed in the name and style of Sangam Auto Industries. In February, 1991 he was informed by the respondents that he had encroached upon government land outside his shed and had also raised a boundary wall there. He was called upon to demolish the boundary wall by 22.02.1991 but he did not do that. He was however given another chance by the respondents vide notice dated 15.04.1991 to remove the encroachment over the government land positively by 02.05.1991 failing which eviction proceedings were to be initiated against him. The plaintiff‟s stand was that he had not...
General Electric Canada Inc and Another Vs. National Hydroelectric Pow ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
IA Nos. 20003 of 2011 and 20004 of 2011 1. IA No. 20003 of 2011 has been filed by Alstom Power and Transport Canada Inc. (‘Alstom’) under Order XXII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for taking on record “the current name of the Claimant/Petitioner No. 2, i.e., Alstom Power and Transport Canada Inc.” and to take on record “the amended memo of parties filed with the application.” 2. IA No. 20004 of 2011 is by General Electric Canada Inc./General Electrique DU Canada (‘GE Canada’) under Order XXII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC bringing on record the current name of “Claimant No. 1/Petitioner No. 1, i.e. General Electric Canada/Generale Electrique Du Canada” and to bring on record ‘the amended memo of parties filed with the application.” Background to the applications 3. The background to the applications is that on 3rd August 1984 a contract was entered into between the Defendant National Hydroelectric Power Corp...
Avneesh Sood Vs. Tithi Sood
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
VIPIN SANGHI, J. 1. The present contempt petition has been filed under Sections 2, 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by the petitioner to take action against the respondent for withdrawing from her undertaking given to the Court, at the time of filing of the petition for mutual divorce, in the matrimonial Court on 14.09.2010. 2. The petitioner, Avneesh Sood and the respondent, Tithi Sood are husband and wife respectively. Their marriage was solemnized on 08.11.2001 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of the wedlock one daughter, Aisheeya, was born on 23.12.2002, who is studying in Step by Step World School, Noida. 3. The petitioner submits that after sometime of the marriage, serious differences arose between the parties. The parties negotiated between themselves and with the intervention of the family friends, both arrived at a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 27.08.2010. They agreed to seek divorce by mutual consent. 4. It was also agreed between the parties...
Ram Rati and Others Vs. Devender Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
ORAL: 1. The appellants have challenged the impugned award of the Claims Tribunal whereby their claim petition has been dismissed. 2. The accident dated 20th November, 2000 resulted in the death of Bhiku Ram Gupta. The deceased aged 47 years at the time of the accident, was survived by his widow, three children and parents who filed the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal. The deceased was hit by a mail van no.DL-1L-0918. The deceased was going on foot from his residence on main Kanhaiya Nagar Road towards Prem Bari Pull Road to Lawrence Road to meet his brother. At Kanhaiya Nagar Chowk, large number of people had gathered to protest against the sealing of factories by the Government. The driver of the mail motor van rashly and negligently reversed the van resulting in death of Bhiku Ram Gupta. The accident was admitted by the Mail Motor Service and the Ministry of Communication. The defence taken was that the deceased died due to his own negligence and fault. It was stated in th...
M/S. Krishna Sweet House Vs. Shri Gurbhej Singh @ Happy and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. Oral: 1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 27.2.2003 dismissing the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 16.10.1993 with respect to the property being front portion of house No. H-4/7, Model Town, Delhi-110009. Prayer was also made for cancelling of the sale deed executed by the original owners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the defendant Nos.3 and 4/respondent Nos. 3 and 4/subsequent purchasers. It is relevant to note that the appellant/plaintiff was a tenant in a shop in the ground floor portion forming part of the property comprised in the agreement to sell, and from where the appellant/plaintiff runs the business of a sweet shop. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff pleaded that the parties had entered into an agreement to sell of the suit prope...
Kritender Sharma Vs. State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated 04.01.2012 passed by learned MM in C.C No.1625/1 whereby the request of the petitioner to refer the matter for investigation to the police was declined and the petitioner/complainant was directed to lead pre-summoning evidence. 2. In brief, the facts as mentioned in the petition are that the complainant is a social worker carrying on many activities in general public interest. He came to know that one Smt.Manju Tyagi, W/o Shri Devinder Tyagi, R/o House No.3/20, Tibia College, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005 and her accomplice Chetanya Bharti, S/o Shri Chander Bharti, R/o 16/20, Tibia College, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 are trying to grab the Tibia College Property bearing House No.16/20, Tibia College, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 illegally on the basis of false and fabricated documents like general power of attorney, affidavits and indemnity bond, which have been executed by them with intend to create the title...
Fashion Design Council of India Vs. Gnct and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
R.V. Easwar, J. 1. These are nine connected writ petitions filed by Fashion Design Council of India (hereinafter referred to as “petitioner”) under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The matter pertains to the Delhi Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1996 (Delhi Act No.8 of 1997) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). 2. Writ Petition No.1145/2010 is taken as a lead matter since the facts in all these writ petitions are somewhat common. The petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, established solely for the purpose of promoting and fostering the growth and development of the Indian Fashion industry. It organizes the India Fashion week, business-to-business interaction events and other Fashion shows. It is claimed that these are not ticketed events and that entry to the Fashion shows/ Fashion weeks is exclusively by invitation, both for domestic and international buyers, associated professionals and media. It was ...
indrawati and Others Vs. Virender Kumar and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
ORDER 1. In this appeal, relating to the apportionment of the compensation assessed in respect of acquired land i.e. Khasra no. 55/2/2 (1-5), 3 (4-16) and 8/1(2-8) measuring 8 bighas and 9 biswas in the revenue estate of Village -Sanoth in pursuance to Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, appellants and the first respondent are the claimants/ Interested Parties (hereinafter referred to as IPs). 2. Reference Court vide impugned judgment of 28th August, 2009 has granted the entire amount of compensation to the first respondent herein, who was IP No. 1 before the Reference Court and the appellants were IP No. 2 to 6, who have come up in this appeal. 3. Impugned judgment, while treating the Relinquishment Deed of 22nd July, 2000 by IP No. 6 in favour of IP No. 1 in respect of the acquired subject land to be a Gift Deed, has granted the entire compensation amount to the first respondent/IP No. 1. To do so, Reference Court in the impugned judgment has relied upon deci...
Union of India and Others Vs. Federation of All India Central Govt. Ca ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. 1. The present writ petition filed by Union of India assails the order dated 3rd December, 1999 in O.A. No.572/1996 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi has directed that the Central Government Canteen employees be given the benefit of the entire past service prior to the said employees being declared as Government servants for counting towards pensionary benefits. 2. The facts as necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition are that: (i) As per decision taken by the Government of India all posts in non-statutory canteens and tiffin rooms run departmentally by the Government of India were treated as posts in connection with the affairs of the Union vide Notification bearing No.6(2)/23/77-Welfare dated 11th December, 1979 w.e.f. 1st October, 1979. The said notification provided, inter alia, that necessary rules governing the service conditions of the canteen employees will be framed having retrospective effect fro...
Mahinder Kumar Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Through Its Chai ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2012
1. This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 by the applicant aggrieved by the impugned Annexure A-1 letter dated 21.08.2010 rejecting his request for reimbursement of the indoor medical bills amounting to Rs.4,63,465/-. The facts necessary for adjudication of this case are delineated hereunder. 2. The applicant is an employee of the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (`MTNL’ for short) and is a resident of Sonepat (Haryana). He suffered a severe heart attack during the night of 10.06.2010 and he was rushed to the nearest Hospital, namely, Darya Ram Hospital at Murthal Road, Sonepat. As his condition was very critical, the doctors in the said Hospital referred him to Jaipur Golden Hospital, Delhi where he was admitted upto 14.06.2010 for his treatment. He incurred an expense of Rs.3,30,502/- for his treatment there. Again, he suffered heart problem after three days i.e. on 17.06.2010 and he was rushed to the said Darya Ram ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »