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.
Mgt. Commt. Ramjas Foundation and Others Vs. S.K. Aggarwal and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2012
Suresh Kait, J. Oral: 1. Since, vide both the petitions i.e. W.P.(C) No.6076/2002 and W.P.(C) No.6077/2002 petitioners have impugned the judgment dated 09.07.2002 passed by Delhi School Tribunal in favour of respondent No.1 respectively, hence, both the aforementioned petitions are taken up for disposal by this common judgment. 2. It is pertinent to mention here that notice in the instant petitions were issued on 24.09.2002 and thereafter vide order dated 03.02.2003, operation of the impugned judgment was stayed on the submission of the petitioner that the petitioner and Director of Education were willing to accept the offer of respondent No.1 for voluntary retirement, matter can be settled. It is further stated that this will be without prejudice to the rights of respondent No.1, in case no settlement arrived at. 3. Order sheets reveals that and in the order dated 05.03.2003 it is noted that Mr.V.P.Choudhary, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that the...
Smt. Champa Joshi Vs. Maan Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2012
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. (ORAL) 1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 18.11.2005 by which the trial Court allowed the application of the defendant No.3/respondent No.3 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and dismissed the suit as being without cause of action. 2. Before coming to the facts of the present case, I must observe that it is elementary that matters pertaining to merits of the disputes i.e. whether a fact as alleged by the appellant/plaintiff is or is not correct or whether a fact as alleged by the respondents/defendants is or is not correct cannot be decided at the stage of pleadings, and surely such disputed questions of fact can only be decided at the stage of final arguments after both the parties have led their evidence. This is because what the plaintiff states in his plaint, as per the plaintiff is right, and what the defendant states in his...
A. Krishna Reddy Vs. Cbi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2012
1. By this petition the Petitioner seeks bail in RC No. DAI/2010/A/0044 under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short PC Act). 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner has been in custody since 20th August, 2011. The charge-sheet has already been filed. Co-accused who have major role have already been granted bail. However, the Learned Trial Court dismissed the bail application of the Petitioner. Even if the allegations as set out in the FIR are taken on their face value, the only allegation against the Petitioner is that he raised bogus wage bills amounting to Rs.3,11,60,000/-. On the face of it the said allegation is incorrect as everybody knew that because of paucity of time work had to be done at war footing and the Petitioner managed to collect the labourers from various States and got the work done in a record time so that the event was a success. The bail application...
Parveen Begum and Another Vs. Appellate Authority and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2012
VIPIN SANGHI, J. 1. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition to seek a writ of certiorari thereby quashing the order of rejection of the petitioners‟appeal passed by the Appellate Authority on 24.04.2012. The petitioners also seek a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to accord approval to the petitioners for effecting transplant of kidney from petitioner No. 2 to petitioner No. 1. 2. The respondents in the present writ petition are the Appellate Authority, namely the Director General of Health Services constituted under Section 17 of the Transplantation of Human Organ and Tissues Act, 1994 (the Act), the Authorisation Committee for Human Organ Transplant, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, constituted under Rule 6A 2(ii) of the Transplantation of Human Organs Rules, 1995 (the Rules) and the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. 3. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 is a home maker aged about 58 years and is a permanent resident of Dary...
Bhupender @ Kale Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. Appellant Bhupender was tried for strangulating, followed by slitting the neck of his wife Sunita @ Babli, with the intention of causing her death at their matrimonial house C-110, Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh, New Delhi between 4 P.M. to 5 P.M. on September 24, 2007. He was also tried for harassing and torturing Sunita on account of insufficient dowry brought. The immediate motive for murdering Sunita was the appellant’s suspecting her fidelity. 2. Vide impugned judgment dated November 11, 2010, Bhupender has been convicted for the offence of having murdered his wife, but on account of material improvements made by the relatives of Sunita with respect to the allegations of appellant harassing and torturing Sunita for a dowry demand, the appellant has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. 3. Thus, we would not be noting such evidence as would relate to the charge of dowry harassment. 4. The duty officer at PS Najafgarh recorded DD No...
Surag Tir Kaman Suraj Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2012
Suresh Kait, J. Oral: 1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has sought mandamus to be issued directing the respondent to consider and issue appointment to the petitioner on the vacant post of Junior Engineer (Horticulture) caused on account of termination of services of Shri Than Singh Verma who was illegally appointed, against the post of Junior Engineer (Horticulture) and also sought all consequential benefits flowing from thereof. 2. The petitioner initially joined the office of the respondent as Technical Assistant (Horticulture) on 17th September, 1998 on contract basis on the monthly pay of `. 4,000/- and continued to work on the same post up to 16th March , 2000. On 17th March, 2000, the term of the petitioner was once again extended for a further period of six months by the office of the respondents. However, before the expiry of the said period, the petitioner was promoted on ad-hoc basis with effect from 14th June, 2000. Thus, the petitioner gained experience of 1 year...
Ptc India Limited Vs. Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2012
JUDGMENT 1. In this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) PTC India Limited, the Petitioner, has challenged the impugned majority Award dated 28th April 2011 in the disputes between it and the Respondent Jaiprakash Power Ventures Limited (JPVL) [the successor-in-interest of Jaypee Karcham Hydro Corporation Limited (‘Jaypee Karcham’)] arising out of a Power Purchase Agreement (‘PPA’) dated 21st March 2006 executed between them for sale and purchase of power from the Jaypee Karcham Wangtoo Hydroelectric Project (‘the project’) being implemented by the Respondent in Kinnaur in Himachal Pradesh. Background Facts 2. Jaypee Karcham, the predecessor-in-interest of JPVL, a generating company within the meaning of Section 2 (28) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (‘EA’) was incorporated on 29th April 2002 for implementing the project comprising of four units of 250 MW each. On 31st March 2003, the C...
Shakuntala Bholla Vs. Sheel Chand Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2012
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The appellant, Shakuntala Bholla has sued the respondent Sheel Chand Jain for specific performance of the agreement to sell Ex.PW-1/1 (also exhibited as Ex.PW-1/PX1) dated September 01, 2003, execution whereof is not in dispute between the parties. The said agreement envisages that for a consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only), Sheel Chand Jain would sell the third floor with roof rights of property bearing No.45/12, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008, comprising three bed-rooms, drawing-cum-dining, kitchen, toilet and a bath-room. Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs) stands recorded as paid to Sheel Chand Jain by Shakuntala Bholla. The agreement records that further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) would be paid within 30 days and the balance Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two lakhs) would be paid on or before January 31, 2004, i.e. the date stipulated for sale to be completed. 2. Shakuntala Bholla paid further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Ru...
Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Registrar, University of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2012
Hima Kohli, J. Oral: 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, father of Ms.Sneh Gupta praying inter alia for issuance of directions to the respondent No.1/University and the respondent No.2/School of Open Learning (SOL) to admit her in the second year B.Com (Hons.) course in the respondent No.2/SOL. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Ms.Sneh Gupta, d/o Mr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta, petitioner herein (hereinafter referred to as the student) was admitted in I.P. College for Women, that is affiliated with the respondent No.1/University, in the first year of B.Com (Hons.) Course for the academic session 2010-11. Due to some personal reasons, she decided to leave the aforesaid college and decided to attend classes through correspondence in the respondent No.2/SOL. As a result, in October, 2011, the student approached I.P. College for seeking migration to the respondent No.2/SOL after declaration of the first year results of B.Com (Hons.) wherein she had scored 77.27% marks...
Mecon Ltd. Vs. Pioneer Fabricators P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2012
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Mecon Ltd. invited offers as per tender documents to construct five retail outlets for Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. It was a case of a back to back contract. The Bill of Quantities i.e. works to be executed were quantified in detail and the price bid required item-wise price to be quoted. Pioneer Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as „Pioneer‟) was one amongst the many persons who submitted offers and being the lowest bidder had its offer in sum of Rs.2,38,92,519/- accepted, resulting in a work order dated May 31, 2000 being issued to it. It was a term that the work plan shall be finalized and accordingly, styling it as a Letter of Award, on June 13, 2000 the parties finalized in the said written memorandum the detail work-plans to complete the work, and as per which the time within which the work had to be completed at the five sites was fixed at 80 days commencing from the date when a particular site would be handed over. The Letter of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »