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.
Sandhya Tripathi and Others Vs. State Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2012
1. By this petition, the Petitioners challenge the order dated 23rd February, 2011 passed by the learned Trial Court directing and framing of charges under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC and the alternative charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are the sisters-in-law of the deceased Vinita @ Bubbly and Petitioner No. 2 is the husband of Petitioner No. 1. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are residing at Lucknow and had no concern with the matrimonial home of the deceased. Petitioner No. 3 is the unmarried sister-in-law of the deceased, who was employed and had left for the work in the garments factory when the alleged incident took place. In view of the absence of the Petitioners at the time of alleged incident, no charge sheet was filed against them however, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate summoned them for offences punishable under Sections 304B/498A/34 IPC and the learned Additional Sessions Judge dir...
Rajesh Kumar Bahll Vs. Rajinder Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of Rs.1,74,000/- awarded to the Appellant for having suffered injuries in a motor accident which occurred on 12.03.1993. 2. On the fateful day i.e. 12.03.1993 at about 1:50 P.M., the Appellant was crossing road at New Moti Nagar and was proceeding to take an entrance examination in MBBS. A truck No.DDL-3276 being driven by the first Respondent in a rash and negligent manner came from the side of Punjabi Bagh. It jumped the red light signal; the driver suddenly applied brakes; the truck turned turtle; the Appellant suffered injuries as both his feet and right hand came under the truck. He was immediately removed to ESI Hospital and was then shifted to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. He remained admitted in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital from 12.03.1993 to 30.04.1993. He underwent three successful surgeries and bone grafting. He was again admitted in Apollo Hospital from 05.06.1999 to 10.06.1999 to undergo plastic surgery. It is c...
Vinod Goel Vs. High Court of Delhi Through Its Registrar General and O ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2012
V.K. JAIN, J. 1. By an advertisement dated 13.05.1996, Delhi High Court invited applications for direct appointments from the Bar to 09 vacant posts in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS). 02 out of those 09 posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste (SC) candidates and one for Scheduled Tribes (ST) candidates, thereby leaving 06 posts to be filled up from amongst general category candidates. It was also stated in the advertisement that in case no suitable ST candidate was available, the post will be open to general category candidates. Accordingly, general category candidates were also eligible to apply against the posts reserved for ST candidates. The Screening Committee, appointed by this Court, prepared a panel of 09 candidates, 07 out of whom were from general category and the remaining 02 from SC category. One Shri Kulbhushan Gupta was amongst the six candidates recommended to be appointed against general category posts and he was placed at Serial No. 5 in the order of merit. ...
Sub/Clk Bodh Raj Sharma Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2012
1. The applicant has filed O.A. No. 248/2011 before this Tribunal praying for quashing of order dated 8 Dec 2010 by which he was awarded severe displeasure and order dated 24 Feb 2011 by which his extension has been revoked and he was discharged with all consequential benefits. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 5 July 1982. He claims that he was awarded Commendation Card by GOC, in C in 1993 and during his service rose to the rank of Subedar. 3. The applicant, while posted at 126MC/MF Detachment at Kanpur, was granted 10 days casual leave from 16 April 2007 to 25 April 2007. The applicant claims that whilst on leave at Jammu he learned that his cousin had expired on 24 April 2007 at Doda. The applicant claims that he tried to contact his unit for extension of leave but was unsuccessful in making telephonic contact. The applicant however claims that his wife had contacted his unit and requested for grant of extension of leave. 4. The applicant...
Surendra Bahadur Singh Vs. Mcd and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2012
Shailendra Pandey, Member (A): MA 383/2012: MA 383/2012 has been filed for preponement of the date of hearing of the OA. It is stated that the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant initiated in 1991 have still been shown as continuing, depriving the applicant of even one promotion since then. Further, no counter reply in the OA has been filed in spite of three opportunities given, which is causing prejudice to the applicant. Notices had been issued in the MA on 13.2.2012. However, no reply to the MA has been filed. The MA is accordingly allowed. OA 3628/2011: The OA had been filed on 03.10.2011 and notices had been issued on 04.10.2011. However, despite the respondents having been granted sufficient opportunities (including a last opportunity) by this Tribunal to file reply vide orders dated 5.12.2011, 5.1.2012 and 31.01.2012 the reply has not been filed. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is not in the interest of the applicant that the OA be allowed to be ...
Sunil Kumar Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation I.P. Estate New Delhi
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2012
Shailendra Pandey, Member (A): 1. In this OA, the applicant has challenged the order of the respondents dated 25.04.2011 in terms of which although he has been allowed light duty in the Ticket Section as he was medically unfit for the post of Conductor as per the Certificate given by the DTC Medical Board, he has not been paid the emoluments during the period he remained absent on medical rest w.e.f. 18.8.2008 onwards due to no leave balance in his credit. 2. The brief facts of the case, as are relevant, are that the applicant had joined as Conductor in the Delhi Transport Corporation in 1982. In 1997 while he was on duty, he met with an accident after which he was assigned table duty w.e.f. 17.05.2002. It is stated that in the year 2004, he again fell down and fractured his right leg. Thereafter on 15.03.2007, he had requested for light table duty but was not assigned the same. On the other hand, a chargesheet dated 10.06.2008 had been issued to him for absenting himself from duty una...
S.P. Chaudhary and Others Vs. Delhi Development Authority Through Its ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2012
Shailendra Pandey, Member (A): 1. In this OA, the applicants (three in number) are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in non-implementation of Establishment Order (EO) No.85 dated 15.01.2010 [Annexure A1] issued by Respondent No.3 (Vice Chairman Delhi Development Authority) [even copies of which have been circulated to all the concerned], in terms of which the Stenographers recruited before 01.01.1979 who were placed in the unified scale of Rs.330-15-405-EB-455-455-15-500-20-700 would be entitled to the benefits of 1st and 2nd ACP in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 and Rs.10000-15200 at the time of eligibility in their hierarchy on completion of 12 and 24 years of service respectively. However, while doing so, the benefit of fixation of pay under FR-22(C) if given earlier would have to be adjusted. 2. The applicants have sought the following reliefs: pass orders for the grant of first and second ACP by directing the respondents to implement the EO No.85 dated 15.01.2010 with all...
M/S Golden Tobacco Ltd, Sanjay Dalmia, Chairman, Vs. Cce, (Adj.) New D ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2012
Per. Justice Ajit Bharihoke: 1. These appeals are preferred against the order-in-original confirming duty demand of Rs. 30,85,63,593/- with interest against the appellant M/s Golden Tobacco Ltd. and M/s Chinar Cigarettes Pvt. Ltd. besides imposing penalty on various persons including the appellant. 2. These matters were originally listed for argument on stay applications moved by the appellants seeking waiver of the condition of pre-deposit of the duty demand and penalty. During the course of arguments Sh. L.P. Asthana, Advocate for the appellant submitted that the order has been passed in contravention of the stay order dated 01.11.2001 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, as such is not sustainable in law. 3. Since the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for the appellant is purely legal with the consent of the parties we have proceeded to hear the appeals itself after waiving the condition of pre-deposit of demand, interest and penalty. 4. Sh. L.P. Asthan...
Brahm Prakash Kumar and Another Vs. Surinder
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. We need to pen a preamble to our opinion. It may be brusque, scathing and harsh in its sweep, but we feel that it is our duty to so record. It is our message to the learned members of the Bar who are approached by the weak, needy, under-privileged, simple village folk etc. to defend them when actions are brought in Courts. : The learned members of the Bar are the only hopes of the poor to seek protection; and therefore you have no excuse but to be better than the best of the lawyers of the corporates and the elite. For they have nothing to lose; but the poor loses out completely if you are incompetent. 2. Instant case brings out the unfortunate lack of professionalism shown by learned counsel for the appellant at the trial and as a result a good case of the appellant has been lost before the learned Single Judge. 3. Observing that as per the law declared in the decisions reported as (1928) LR 55 IA 360 Ardeshr Mama v. Flora Sassoon, AIR 1968 SC 1355 Premr...
Shri Man Mohan Batra Vs. Shri Bharat Bhushan Batra and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2012
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. (ORAL) CM No.5180/2012 (Restoration) There is no opposition to the restoration and therefore, this application is allowed and the appeal is restored to its original number. Application is disposed of accordingly. RFA No. 865/2003 1. This Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment of the trial Court dated 1.8.2003 dismissing the suit for partition filed by the appellant/plaintiff inasmuch as it was found that the appellant/plaintiff by virtue of registered documents being the Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, Will (registered), receipt etc. transferred his 1/4th right in the suit property in favour of the defendant no.1. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff filed the subject suit for partition claiming that he and the defendants who are his brothers jointly purchased the suit property bearing No. BJ (5), West Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and he had executed a General Power of Attorn...
- ‹ Prev
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- Next ›
- Last »