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.
Vimla Sethi Vs. AnisuddIn and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. Suit filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, Anisuddin and Khalid Riaz, seeking a declaration that they are the owners in possession of property bearing No.226, Block-A, New Friends Colony, New Delhi and requiring appellants to execute a saledeed in respect thereof with respect to the agreement to sell dated Ex.DW-1/P.1 has been decreed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment and decree dated July 02, 2008. 2. The appellant, impleaded as defendant No.1 is aggrieved by the decree. DDA and Delhi Administration, impleaded as defendants No.2 and 3 in the suit have evinced no concern with the decree. 3. Appellant Vimla Sethi, as a member of the New Friends Cooperative House Building Society Limited, was allotted the plot of land bearing Municipal No.A-226, New Friends Colony, New Delhi and vide perpetual sub-lease deed Ex.DW-1/P.16 dated March 24, 1973 acquired perpetual lease-hold rights in the land under the Union of India, requiring her, in terms of Clause I...
In the Matter of Ramjas Foundation Society and Another Vs. Govt. of Nc ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2012
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner No.1/Ramjas Foundation Society and the petitioner No.2/Managing Committee of Ramjas Senior Secondary School No.1, Darya Ganj, New Delhi, have filed the present petition against the respondent No.1/Govt. of NCT of Delhi and the respondent No.2/Director of Education (DOE), praying inter alia for quashing/setting aside the order dated 13.05.2004 passed by respondent No.2, directing that an amount of Rs.7,94,711/- be deducted from the grant-in-aid to be released to the petitioners under sub-section (4) of Section 24 and under sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act") read with the relevant rules, for repeated non-compliance of the orders passed in respect of one Shri R.S. Sharma, a teacher employed in the petitioner No.1/school. 2. The relevant facts of the case are undisputed and lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner No.1 is a society registered under the Societies Registrat...
Yad Ram Sharma Vs. Hari Singh and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. The Appellant seeks enhancement of compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- awarded to him for having suffered injuries in an accident which occurred on 16th February, 1992. 2. The compensation awarded was reduced by 50% on the ground that the Appellant was himself negligent and contributed to the accident. 3. The compensation awarded is tabulated hereunder:- Sl.No. Compensation under various heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal 1.Medical ExpensesRs.2,03,357/-2.Conveyance ExpensesRs. 20,000/-3.Special DietRs. 10,000/-4.Loss of earnings (Rs.3000x24 (months)Rs. 72,000/-5.Pain and SufferingRs.45,000/-6.Loss of amenities and normal happy life, loss of future earning capacity and shortening of life spanRs.1,00,000/- ...
M.M. Bhatt and Others Vs. Delhi Jal Board, Govt. of Nct of Delhi, Varu ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2012
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): MA No. 1536/2011 1. Respondents have moved this MA under Rule 15(2) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 for restoration of the MA No.2352/2009 and MA No.2353/2009 as both the MAs were dismissed on 13.05.2011 for default and non-prosecution. 2. We heard Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, learned counsel for the applicant - Delhi Jal Board (DJB) and Mr. Vishwa Lochan Madan, learned counsel representing the respondents in the MA. 3. It is stated in the MA that the counsel was on her legs in another Court in the Tribunal and when the present case was called out she could not present herself. In the background of this unfortunate circumstances both MAs were dismissed for default and non-prosecution. She, therefore, prayed that MA No. 1536/2011 should be allowed and the MA No. 2352/2009 and MA No.2353/2009 should be restored. 4. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents in the MA No. 1536/2011 has opposed the recalling of the Tribu...
Central Health Services Regularly Appointed Doctorand#8217;s Forum Thr ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2012
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A) 1. This Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging contumacious act on the part of the sole respondent/alleged contemnor, alleging that he has failed to comply with the directions issued by this Tribunal in OA No.338/2009 on 21.09.2011 as follows:- “In view of the above position, this O.A is allowed. Consequently, the impugned Annexure A-1 Order No. A32012/07/05-CHS-I dated 28.11.2008 is quashed and set aside to the extent that the promotion to the applicants has been made effective from the date they assume charge. The respondents shall treat the applicants as promoted to Supertime Administrative Grade of the General Duty Sub-Cadre of the Central Health Service with effect from 13.02.2007 i.e. the date on which the DPC has recommended them for promotion for which the ACC has accorded its approval. In view of the above facts and circumstances of this case, the applicants will also be entitled for all consequential benefits including arrea...
R.K. Dahiya Vs. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2012
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. Applicant has challenged order dated 17.11.2011 whereby he has been informed that due to non-vigilance clearance, recommendations of the CVC and the decision of CDA to issue major penalty charge sheet much before when the DPC had met on 25.7.2011, it has rightly been recommended to put his name in the sealed cover (page 12). He has further sought direction to the respondents to declare the result of the DPC and pass further orders in accordance with law. 2. It is stated by the applicant that he is presently posted as Deputy General Manager (Engineering and Maintenance) with effect from June, 2006. He was eligible for promotion to the post of Manager (Engineering and Maintenance) on 25.7.2011 when DPC had met and was in the zone of consideration. It is stated by the applicant that he has reliably learnt that DPC has recommended his name as he was found suitable. However, his name was kept in the sealed cover even though neither any charge sheet was iss...
M/S. Kapco Erectors Vs. Flex Engineering Ltd. and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2012
1. M/s Kapco Erectors has filed this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) challenging an Award dated 28th February 2005 passed by the sole Arbitrator in the disputes between it and the Respondent No. 1 Flex Engineering Ltd. arising out of an order dated 9th February 2001 placed by the Respondent No. 1 on the Petitioner for fabrication and erection of pre-fab steel canopies at its various retail outlets. 2. In terms of the Agreement between the parties, pre-fab steel canopies were to be erected by the Petitioner at the following stations:- (i) M/s Anupam Fuel, Meerut (ii) M/s Bhoop Singh, Mussorie (iii) M/s B.P. Shamli (iv) M/s Mansrover Muzaffarnagar (v) M/s Kundeshwari S/S Kashipur (vi) M/s Desh Raj Ashok Kumar, Sarswa. 3. The value of the contract was Rs. 33,29,200 and the work was to be completed within a period of sixty days. The work had to be done as per the tender specifications and plans attached to the Agreement and in ter...
Anand Mohan Vs. State Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2012
1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner Anand Mohan, accused in case FIR No.183/2011 registered at P.S.Malviya Nagar, New Delhi against him for committing the offence punishable under Section 498-A/304-B/306 IPC. Petitioner is impugning the order dated 25th November, 2011, vide which the learned ASJ ordered to charge the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. 2. In brief the case of the prosecution is that vide DD.No.9-A, an intimation was received regarding commission of suicide by a lady aged about 28 years. The said DD was assigned to SI Prem Singh, who along with staff reached the spot and met Sh.Dhanesh and two other ladies, namely, Jyoti Singh and Smt.Sunita. One lady was found hanging with iron grill mounted at the door of the bedroom, whose name and address he came to know as Usha Punjab Singh wife of Anand Mohan. 3. Sh.Dhanesh informed the police that the lady along with her husband had been residing there for the last six months as a tenant on the ...
State Vs. Lal Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2012
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. By this petition the State challenges the order of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 12th December, 2008 whereby the Learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order of the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 2nd September, 2008 dismissing the application of the Respondents seeking discharge under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C. 2. Briefly the facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are that the complainant Madan Gopal Arora was working as a Labour Inspector at Labour Department in Jhilmil Colony, Vishwakarma Nagar, Shadara and on 17th December, 2007 at about 10.30 AM he had gone to deliver a letter of meeting at the Mother Dairy office. After delivering the letter to the Assistant Manager, Mother Dairy Shri R.T. Wadhwa and Vice-President Shri Rajbir when he was coming back to his office, the Respondents came and abused the complainant and gave beatings. On the allegations of the complainant FIR No. 624/2007 under Section 186/353/34 ...
Rajendra Wanchoo Vs. Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2012
Suresh Kait, J. 1. Vide instant petition, the petitioner has prayed as under:- “(a) Issue a writ of Quo Warranto directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 to show by what authority to right has respondent No.3 appointed respondent No.4 to the position of Deputy General Manager (Personnel and Administration). (b) To quash and set aside the appointment of respondent No.4. (c) Direct respondent No.3 by issuance of the writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ to consider the petition to the post of Deputy General Manager (Personnel and Administration) in terms of the undertaking dated 04.08.2004. (d) To issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.3 to provide all consequential reliefs to the petitioner such as payment of retrospective benefits and dues starting from the date of unlawful appointment of respondent No.4. (e) To direct respondent No.3 by the writ of Mandamus to consider the petitioner for speedy promotion in view of the fact that the petitioner has been deprived of ren...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »