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.
Damanreet Kaur Vs. Indermeet Juneja and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2012
1. The petitioner has preferred this revision petition impugning the order dated 01.06.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi. The petitioner is wife of respondent Indermeet Juneja. She filed a complaint case bearing No.352/3 under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 alongwith an application for monetary relief under Section 23 of the Act. Her prayer for interim monetary relief was declined vide order dated 18.11.2010 by the learned M.M. 2. Feeling aggrieved, she preferred an appeal against the said order passed by the learned M.M. declining monetary relief to her. In appeal, the learned ASJ vide the impugned order dated 01.06.2011 though declined the prayer of interim monetary relief to the petitioner, partly allowed the appeal and directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition towards contribution of the respondent to maintain the child born out of the wedlock of the parties. 3. The ...
Devender Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2012
ANIL KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner has sought quashing of order dated 27th February, 1998 passed by the SSFC dismissing the petitioner from service on the basis of alleged plea of pleading Guilty and to direct the respondents to reduce the punishment from dismissal to any other punishment as per the provision of the BSF Act. 2. Brief facts to comprehend the disputes are that the petitioner had joined the Border Security Force as a Constable in August, 1990. Subsequently, he was made to work as a constable driver at 151st Bn SHQ Siliguri. Thereafter, in January, 1998, the petitioner was temporarily attached to the 151 Bn, BSF, Rani Nagar. 3. As contended by the petitioner, on 28th January, 1998 a Sentry in the Camp had reported to the Head Constable K.B. Patel, that noise was coming from the nearby village. HC K.B. Patel, therefore, sent the petitioner along with other two Constables to visit the nearby village and find out the cause of the noise. On reaching the village, however, the pe...
Bindu Rani Vs. Govt. of Nct and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) 1. Vide the instant petition, petitioner has prayed as under:- (i) To direct the respondent (s) to rectify the mistake committed by them / by Selection Committee while considering the marks of the Petitioner Secured by her in J.B.T exam. (ii) To direct the respondent (s) to appoint to the Petitioner as Assistant Teacher and assign to her the seniority from the date similarly selected candidates were appointed through the Interview conducted by the Selection Committee on 08.01.2008. (iii) To grant to the Petitioner all the consequential benefits including arrears of pay from the date of selection and offer of appointment to other candidate (s) who were given appointment through the same selection process. (iv) To award suitable cost of litigation in favour of the Petitioner and against the respondent (s). 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner applied for the Post of Assistant Teacher advertised by the respondent School in the month of November, 2007. Aga...
Shriram General Insurance Co. Vs. Naresh Kumar Bhardwaj and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The Appellant Shriram General Insurance Company impugns a judgment dated 14.02.2012 whereby a compensation of Rs.1,06,040/- was awarded in favour of the First Respondent for having suffered injuries in an accident which occurred on 11.07.2010. 2. The only ground of challenge is that even though the Appellant successfully proved the breach of the terms of the policy, as the driver-cum-owner (the Respondent No.2) did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, yet instead of exonerating the Appellant, it was made liable to pay the compensation with a right to recover the same from the owner. 3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that when the driver does not possess a driving licence at all, the Insurance Company has no liability to satisfy the award even in respect of a third party. Reliance is placed on a judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Vasdev Kukreja and Ors., 2010 (3) T.A.C. 383(Del.). 4....
Munjal Showa Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2012
SANJIV KHANNA,J. (ORAL) 1. Munjal Showa Ltd. has filed the present writ petition for quashing the notice dated 24.3.2011 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) for the assessment year 2005-06. 2. It is an accepted case that the original assessment proceedings pursuant to return of income filed on 29.10.2005 were completed by an order under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 31.12.2008. The assessee had declared income of Rs. 10,83,61,920/- which was enhanced to Rs. 33,49,73,994/- by order dated 31.12.2008. We are not concerned with the said addition, which is the subject matter of challenge in the appellate proceedings. 3. On 24.3.2011 the respondent issued notice under Section 148 of the Act inter alia recording the following reasons: “Return of income declaring income of Rs.10,83,61,920/- was filed on 29/10/2005. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 31/12/2008 at Rs.33,49,73,994/- resulting in demand of Rs.11,14,78,598/-. Perusal of ...
A.K. Gautam Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2012
V.K. JAIN, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 08.03.1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal), whereby O.A. No. 2980/1997 filed by the private respondents was allowed. The facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition can be summarized as under:- The petitioner as well as the private respondents are Group ‘C’Inspectors in Central Excise and Customs. The next promotional post for the Inspectors in Central Excise and Customs is Superintendent (Group ‘B’) which is a Gazetted post. The recruitment rules for the post of Superintendent in Central Excise and Customs provide for 95% of the posts to be filled by promotion from the feeder grade of Inspectors and remaining 5% are to be filled up by direct recruitment. Inspectors with eight years of regular service in the grade are eligible to be considered for promotion, on the basis of selection. Reservation...
S.P. Sharma Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) 1. In the order dated 25.04.2012, it was recorded by this Court as under:- “1. Vide instant petition, the petitioner has sought to issue writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 06.08.2008 whereby the disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner from the services of the bank. 2. Also sought quashing of the order dated 30.07.2009 passed by the appellate authority whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent bank as a clerk in December, 1969 and has arisen upto the position of Chief Manager of the bank. 4. On 30.01.2007, respondent had served memorandum of even date signed by respondent No.2 and also served charge-sheet on the same date. However, same was received by the petitioner on 17.02.2007 alongwith the documents. 5. Vide order dated 22.02.2007, respondent bank appointed Sh.S.S.Bohra, Assistant General Manager, Staff Training Centre, Bik...
Ashok Kumar and Another Vs. Matbar Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The Appellants who are the parents of the deceased Ashish Kumar a minor aged 17 years and a student of 10th standard seek enhancement of compensation of Rs.2,44,000/- awarded for his death in an accident which occurred on 01.09.2005. 2. No Appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company or by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. I am, therefore, not to go into the finding on negligence which has become final between the parties. 3. Grant of compensation to the parents of a deceased minor studying in a school is covered by the judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Farzana and Ors., 2009 ACJ 2763, where, after considering various judgments of the Supreme Court, a compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- was awarded. I extract paras 4 to 8 of the judgment as under:- “4. In the case of Manju Devi Vs. Musafir Paswan, VII (2005) SLT 257, the Hon’ble Supreme Court awarded compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- in respect of death of ...
Nb Sub Rajendra Pal Singh (Skt) Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2012
1. This OA was filed in the Armed Forces Tribunal on 31.10.2011 and was registered as OA No.468/2011. 2. Vide this OA, the applicant has sought quashing and setting aside of his discharge order served to the applicant through message ID 5 bearing No.A-8096 dated 19.10.2011 (Annexure P-1). 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 09.01.1985. In the course of his service, he got promoted to the rank of Naib Subedar. 4. It is submitted that for the first time in January 2010 the applicant was temporarily downgraded to Low Medical Category for six months for the disabilities of CORONOARY ARTERY disease and in the month of June 2010, the applicant was again temporarily downgraded to Low Medical Category for six months for the same disease. In January 2011, the applicant was again downgraded to temporary Low Medical Category for six month and lastly on 17.09.2011, the applicant was downgraded to permanent Low Medical Category (SHAPE-2) for two year...
Hav/Tcm (Radar) Dhan Pat Singh and Another Vs. Union of India and Othe ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2012
1. The OA No.99/2010 was filed in the Armed Forces Tribunal on 16.02.2010 whereas OA No.118/2010 was filed on 22.02.2010 respectively. By way of this common order, we shall hereby dispose off both the above mentioned OAs bearing OA No.99/2010 and 118/2010 as facts and circumstances of both the cases are common in nature and points in dispute are similar and the reliefs sought in both the cases are also similar in nature. Arguments were heard together with the request of both the parties. 2. The OA No.118/2010 filed by Hav Dhan Pat is being taken first. The applicant in this OA has prayed for quashing and setting aside of the impugned order dated 20.08.2009 (Annexure P-1) by which the applicant was discharged w.e.f. 30.09.2010 and order dated 28.08.2009 (Annexure P-2) vide which he was denied promotion as they are alleged to be violative of para 6(a), (b) as well as para 9 of the promotion policy dated 10.10.1997 (Annexure A-3). He has further prayed that the respondents be directed to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »