Delhi Court May 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.
Indian Pilots Vs. Air India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2012
1. This Appeal brings to fore the competing rights of parties in a lis, which has its genesis in the merger of two national air carriers, i.e., Air India and Indian Air Lines. In this, internecine and passionate battle of rights there are several dramatis personae. The appellant, which is a trade union representing evidently 600 pilots of erstwhile Air India is one such party, the respondent which is the management is the other party. But there is an important party to this lis which, often goes unrepresented, which is, the passenger. The respondent, that is, the management, in this litigation, seeks to represent this powerless, but important player, i.e., the passenger. One may or may not be able to decipher the motive of the respondent for doing so, but surely, as is well known, of which we can take judicial notice, that the respondent would find it difficult to survive if the passenger were to give up on it. This is apart, from the fact that, a national carrier is required to fulfil...
M/S. R.N. Singh Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2012
Per Archna Wadhwa (for the Bench): 1. Though the prayer in the stay petition is to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of duty and interest, but learned advocate fairly submits that the entire Service Tax of Rs.8,78,539/- was deposited by them at the level of Commissioner (Appeals) stage. As such, he submits that prayer in the application be restricted to only interest amount. 2. Learned AR agrees that Service Tax stands deposited by the appellant. 3. In view of the above, I dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of interest and proceed to decide the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides. 4. After hearing Shri Hemant Bajaj, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants and Ms. Renu Jagdev, learned AR appearing for the Revenue, I find that the appellant was providing various services falling under various categories to M/s. Hindalco Industries. He was duly registered for the ...
Subhash Chander Vs. D.D.A.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2012
A.K.SIKRI, ACJ. 1. The appellant is the lessee of plot No.A-3/51, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. Vide perpetual lease deed dated 8th January, 1974 executed between the appellant and the President of India. The appellant applied for conversion of the leasehold rights into freehold. In response, the respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA) sent a demand letter dated 21st August, 1998 calling upon the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.22,27,664/- on the ground that the appellant was misusing the said residential premises by running a school therein with the name “Premier Public School”. As per the respondent DDA, notice dated 28th May, 1983 had also been issued to the appellant to show cause why misuse charges be not levied. The case of the respondent DDA is that no reply was received to the said show cause notice and therefore another show cause notice dated 7th January, 1984 was also issued but even that was not responded to and the appellant did not even intimate that he had ...
Shambhu Prasad Singh Vs. Manjari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2012
RAVINDRA BHAT,J. 1. This judgment answers a reference to this Division Bench, requiring resolution of a conflict between the decision of two learned Single Judges of this Court on the question whether a magistrate can act straightaway on a complaint made by an aggrieved person, under the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereafter “the Act”). A learned Single Judge had considered and ruled upon the scope and effect of different provisions in an earlier decision of this court. Another learned Single Judge by order dated 03.05.2012 referred the present matter to the Chief Justice for being placed before a Division Bench for consideration. In these circumstances, the reference was assigned to this Court for its opinion. The precise question which this Court is called upon to answer is whether calling for and considering the report of the Protection Officer under the Act is mandatory before the Court can issue notice to a Respondent in an application under S...
Khazan Singh and Another Vs. Virender Singh @ Pappu and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. The Appellants, who are the parents of the deceased Raju impugn a judgment dated 04.04.2011 whereby while awarding a compensation of `4,48,000/-, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) directed the Appellant to recover 50% of the compensation awarded from the driver, owner and Insurer of the truck No.HR-38F-6139. 2. It may be noticed that a Claim Petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) was preferred by the Appellants. It was alleged that deceased Raju, a young unmarried boy of 20 years, was on board a truck No.HR-38F-6139 as a helper at the time of the accident on 12.10.201. The truck was loaded with stones and was proceeding from Anang Pur, Faridabad to Noida. When the truck reached near Vikas Properties in Village Lakkarpur, the driver did not notice the dumper No.HR-38D-5267 parked on the road. The truck rammed into the dumper. Raju suffered serious injuries which proved fatal. 3. The driver of the dumper conteste...
Sri Yogindera Singh and Another Vs. Coal India Limited and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2012
Tapen Sen, J. The two Writ Petitioners are the son and mother respectively, and they are both legal heirs of deceased Sitaram Singh, Ex-pump Khalasi, Chapui Khas Colliery, P.O. Kali Pahari, Dist. Burdwan. They have prayed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus Commanding upon the Respondents to provide employment to the Petitioner No. 1, Yogendra Singh under the “died-in-harness” Scheme under Clause 9:4:2 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-V or other relevant provisions and to release monetary compensation to the widow (Petitioner No. 2). 2. Let it be recorded that on 14th September 2011, Mr. Alok Banerjee, learned Counsel for the Respondents, had pointed out that the Petitioners had earlier moved this Court, for the self-same reliefs vide W.P. 8437 (W) of 2005 in the Appellate Side and in view of repeated non-appearance, the case was dismissed for default; interim Orders vacated and Rule, if any, discharged by Order dated 10.9.2009 passed by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice...
Wacker Metroark Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mccoy Silicons Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2012
MANMOHAN, J. (Oral) 1. Present winding up petition has been filed under Section 433(e) read with Sections 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 stating that respondent company is unable to pay its debts allegedly amounting to Rs. 38,48,466.67/-. 2. The facts as stated in the petition are that the petitioner supplied silicon products to the respondent from September, 2010 to May, 2011. Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the respondent’s E-mail dated 03rd January, 2012 wherein the respondent in its books of accounts has admitted that a sum of Rs.31,52,563.42/- is due and payable to the petitioner. 3. However, a perusal of the reply to the statutory winding up notice reveals that the defence of the respondent is that the petitioner’ Section holding company namely, M/s. Wacker Chemie, Germany is liable to pay monies in excess of Rs. 8 crores to the respondent. The relevant paragraphs of the reply are reproduced hereinbelow:- “5. Without ...
Constable VipIn Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2012
ANIL KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner has sought the quashing of the SSFC proceedings, findings and sentence dated 25th September, 2010 and order dated 11th August, 2011 rejecting the statutory petition dated 21st March, 2011 filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has also sought his reinstatement with full back wages. 2. Relevant facts for comprehending the controversies are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable (GD) on 15th January, 2003 after which he had undergone training at STC BSF, Kharkan Camp (Punjab). After the completion of his training, the petitioner was posted to 193 Bn., BSF w.e.f. 11th December, 2003. The petitioner was thereafter sent to SHQ BSF CI (Ops) Manipur for his permanent posting. The petitioner again joined 193 Bn on 24th March, 2009 and served at various locations. 3. During his posting, the petitioner was granted 23 days Earned Leave from 7th May, 2009 to 29th May, 2009 with permission to avail three days JP w.e.f. 30th May, 2009 to 1st June, 2009 from...
Apeejay School and Another Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) 1. The instant petition being filed while challenging the impugned order dated 2nd February, 2010 by which the services of the respondent no.2 has been regularized as a Group-D employee with effect from 1st February, 1997 when the appointment letter was issued to him. Consequential benefits have also been directed to be released in his favour and directed to be released within one month of the issuance of the order. 2. Mr. H L Tiku, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that vide communication dated 19th August, 1992, the petitioner’s School requested the Chairman/Apeejay Education Society, for sanctioning the following posts in the school:- “POSTNUMBERReceptionist cum TypistOneDriverOnePeonOne Submitted for Chairman’s kind approval and sanction.” 3. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent no. 2 has been posted on the post of peon in the category of Group -D employee. He was a...
Shri Gulshan Sethi and Another Vs. Rajan Dhall and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. The Petitioners (Defendants No.1 and 3 before the Trial Court) challenge the order dated 28.11.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge whereby the Petitioners and Respondent No.2 were directed to “remove the brick wall so constructed at the first floor of the property No.D-24 (WHS), Timber Market, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi and allow the appellant to use the back side staircase put at the back portion of the ground floor to have access to and from the first floor of property No.B-24 (WHS), Timber market, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi until and unless the stairs, as per the sanctioned plan are reconstructed/rebuilt/completed by the defendant no.1,2 and 3, till the final disposal of the suit.” 2. Status of the parties before this Court, the Appellate Court and the Trial Court is extracted from Para 3 of the Petition hereunder:- Before this Court Before Appellate Court Before Trial Court Petitioner No.1Respondent No.1Defendant No.1Petitioner No.2Responde...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »