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.
World Lung Foundation South Asia Vs. Ministry of Health and Family Wel ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2012
A.K. SIKRI, J. 1. This Public Interest Litigation besides seeking enforcement of the provisions of Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 prohibiting sale of tobacco products within a radius of 100 yds. of an educational institutions, also seeks certain other directions, all aimed at reducing the harms from consumption of tobacco products. Cognizance of the petition was taken by issuing notice on 10th November, 2010. Direction was also issued to the respondent no.4 Commissioner of Police, Delhi to ensure such prohibition. 2. On 2nd February, 2011 the following order was passed:- “Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Anjum Javed, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. It is submitted by Mr. Santosh Kumar that the present case in the real sense of the term involves public interest inasmuch as despite the Tobacco Act, 2003, the tobacco ...
Hari Singh Thr. Lrs. and Another Vs. Gugan Thr. Lrs.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2012
ORDER 1. Impugned judgment of 9th December, 1993 apportions the compensation granted vide Award No.20/85-86, in respect of acquisition of 4 Bighas and 8 Biswas of land in Khasra No.12/1 and 13/5 of Village Pooth Kalan, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the subject land) in equal share between the first party i.e. the appellants and the second party, i.e. the respondents, in proceedings under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. Appellants are the legal heirs of Interested Party No.1- Sube Singh son of Khema (henceforth referred to as I.P. No.1), who claim to be the recorded owner of the subject land whereas, Interested Party No. 2- Gugan son of Duliya had claimed that he was in settled possession of the subject land since long and had thus become Bhumidhar therein. Respondents are the legal heirs of Interested Party No.2 - Gugan (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.No.2’). 3. Undisputedly, I.P.No.1 as well as I.P.No.2 were embroiled in proceedings unde...
Gas Authority of India Ltd. (Gail) Vs. M/S. Bhageertha Engineering Ltd ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. The two captioned intra-court appeals were decided vide judgment and order dated April 02, 2003. Whereas FAO(OS) No.234/2002 filed by M/s.Bhageertha Engineering Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as „Bhageertha‟) was dismissed, FAO(OS) No.221/2002 filed by Gas Authority of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as „GAIL‟) was partially allowed and apart from claims No.1(b) and 2 allowed by the learned Arbitrator which were set aside by the learned Single Judge, even claim No.3 allowed by the learned Arbitrator and not set aside by the learned Single Judge was set aside. 2. The said decision was challenged by Bhageertha before the Supreme Court and upon Leave to Appeal(s) being granted, C.A.No.4125/2003 and C.A.No.4126/2003 were disposed of by the Supreme Court vide order dated July 22, 2009. The appeals were restored for fresh disposal. 3. The reason recorded in the order dated July 22, 2009 for remanding the matter and requiring the two appeals...
Nar Singh Dass Gupta Vs. Shri Lal Man and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2012
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. (ORAL) 1. This Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 10.8.1998 dismissing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff filed for possession and mesne profits with respect to the suit property bearing no. C-11, Adarsh Nagar Extension, Azadpur, Delhi admeasuring 200 sq. yds. 2. The case of the appellant/plaintiff was that he purchased the suit property on 8.12.1966 by means of a registered sale deed from Subedar Major Jaswant Singh. Subedar Major Jaswant Singh had purchased the suit property by means of a registered sale deed on 30.7.1966 from M/s Capital Housing Private Ltd. The appellant/plaintiff claimed that there was a requirement of safeguarding this property inasmuch as, he was living in Narela, a separate area from where the suit property is situated, and therefore, when he went to the suit property in the year 1984, he was approached by the defendant no.1/respon...
Kamla Devi Vs. Rajmal Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2012
1. This petition under Section 482 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated 23.11.2011 vide which the learned Judge, Family Court, Dwarka enhanced the maintenance awarded to her in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- per month. The petitioner feeling dissatisfied with this enhancement, is claiming that the maintenance be increased from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. 2. It is admitted case of the parties that they got married on 22.06.1978 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. It is also not in dispute that within a few days of the marriage the petitioner left the matrimonial home and started living separately. The cause of leaving matrimonial home, as per petitioner, is harassment on account of dowry from the very second day of the marriage and she being thrown out of the matrimonial home due to her ugly look and also because the respondent wanted to marry her younger sister. 3. As per the...
Microsoft Corporation and Another Vs. Nimesh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2012
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining the infringement of copyrights, delivery up, rendition of accounts, damages, etc. against the defendant. The plaintiff No.1, is a company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington, USA, plaintiff No.2, Microsoft Corporation India Private Limited is the wholly owned marketing subsidiary of the plaintiff No.1, located in New Delhi. The plaintiffs are engaged in the business of developing, manufacturing, licensing and support of a range of software products for various computing devices. The software products of the plaintiffs include operating systems for servers, personal computers, intelligent devices etc. 2. It is averred in the plaint that the software programs developed and marketed by the plaintiffs are “computer program” within the meaning of Section 2 (ffc) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and is included in the definition of literary work as...
Ex. Sub. Shiv Ram Baboo Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2012
1. The case was initially filed before the Honble High Court on 13.04.2009 as WP (C) No.8180 of 2009 and was subsequently transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal on 03.12.2009. 2. Vide his prayer, the applicant has sought quashing of the order dated 16.02.2009 (Annexure P-6) by which he was informed under the RTI that he was discharged being LMC (P) case under Army Rule 13(3)(1)(iii) read with Army Rule 13 (2)(A) w.e.f. 31.07.2007. The applicant has also prayed for issuing directions to the respondents to implement the order/judgment dated 20.11.2008 passed in case of Sub. (SKT) Puttan Lal Vs. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No.5946/2007 by the Honble Delhi High Court and for reinstating the applicant with all consequential benefits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was enrolled in the regular Army (Mech Infantry) as combatant soldier on 28.08.1982. During his service he was posted in peace, field, high altitude area and earned various medals. He was promoted to the r...
Ex. Sgt. Prem Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2012
1. The applicant filed this O.A. on 08.04.2010. Vide this O.A. the applicant has prayed for setting aside of the order dated 06.06.2008, the order of dismissal from service and order dated 04.02.2009 i.e. the order of rejection of the petition of the applicant. He has also prayed for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 23.07.1990. Thereafter, he was posted to various units and formations and was serving in Headquarters Western Air Command (HQWAC) on 09.01.2006. He was married to one Mrs. Reena Tripathi and was living in married service quarters in Subroto Park, New Delhi. As they had no issues, therefore, they had moved a petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent before the learned District Judge, Tis Hazari on 26.02.2008, which was granted on 21.07.2008 (Annexure A-I). 3. It is further contended that one Sh. Suresh Yad...
Chandan Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Through ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2012
ORAL: G. George Paracken, M (J) 1. Both these Original Applications are identical in nature and therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. Applicants have filed these OAs under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking a direction to the respondents to declare the results of the written examination held on 09.08.2009 and the subsequent interview held from 08.01.2010 to 12.01.2010 for the Post Graduate Teacher (PGT for short) (Computer Science) pursuant to the advertisement in the Employment News dated 27.12.2008 - 02.01.2009 for appointment in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyala located in various districts of the country. 3. The brief facts of the cases are delineated hereunder. The respondents have issued an advertisement in the Employment News dated 27.12.2008 - 02.01.2009 inviting applications in the prescribed format from eligible Indian nationals for filling up the vacancies for the post of PGT (Computer Science). The applicants have applied against th...
Naveen Verma Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through Its Commis ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2012
MRS. MANJULIKA GAUTAM, MEMBER (A): This OA has been filed seeking the following reliefs: “(i) to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 01.2.2012. (ii) to declare the action of respondents in promoting ineligible persons to the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) on current duty charge by ignoring the rules and procedures. (iii) to quash and set aside the promotion of Respondent No. 4 being illegal and arbitrary. (iv) to direct the respondents to consider the applicant for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer on current duty charge/adhoc promotion without any delay and promote him with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay. (v) to allow the OA with exemplary cost.” 2. The impugned orders dated 1.02.2012 are regarding current duty charge to the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) made as a stop gap arrangement up to 16.05.2012 or till the posts are filled on regular basis. By the order aforesaid, three Superintending Engineer (Civil) who are presently working on...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »