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.
J.M. Kohli Vs. Madan Mohan Sahni and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2012
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 8372/2012 (Exemption) Application allowed, subject to all just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. C.M. No. 8337/2012 (U/O 22 Rule 4 CPC) Since respondent No.2 is stated to have died after the filing of the appeal in the Registry, the application is allowed, and the legal heir of respondent No.2 as stated in para 4 of this application, is brought on record. C.M. stands disposed of. C.M. No. 8336/2012 (Delay in re-filing) and C.M. No. 8335/2012 (Delay in filing) Though, in my opinion, prima facie, there does not appear to be a good ground for condonation of huge delay of 202 days in re-filing the appeal, since however, I have heard the appeal on merits, I am allowing the application for delay in filing and re-filing the appeal subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. RFA No. 207/2012 1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgm...
In the Matter of Vimla Sharma Vs. M.C.D. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2012
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral) 1. Vide order dated 20.03.2012, it was recorded that though four reliefs were sought by the petitioner in the present petition, notice was issued limited to the reliefs sought in prayer (a) and (d) alone while granting leave to the petitioner to claim damages as sought by her in prayers (b) and (c), before the appropriate forum. 2. Counsel for the petitioner states at the outset that he does not wish to press for the relief sought in prayer (a) which is for restoration of the subject flat and he seeks to confine the present petition to relief sought in prayer (d) which is for quashing of the order dated 31.12.2003 whereunder, respondents No.1 to 4/MCD had demanded demolition charges of Rs.5,875/- from the petitioner. 3. The petitioner claims to be a lawful owner in possession of flat bearing No.360-F, Second Floor, Pocket-II, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi that was purchased by her from the respondent No.8 in the year 1996. It is averred in the petition that on 09.06...
Shri Satbir Singh Vs. Shri Anna Hazare and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2012
PRATIBHA RANI, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure impugning the order dated 13.4.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.Rev.No.58/2012. The petitioner has claimed himself to be a peace loving, law abiding citizen, social worker and patriot. He alleged that the accused persons as traitors, antisocial persons had hatched the conspiracy to cause losses and lower down the reputation of the Govt. and the Prime Minister of the country in the garb of `Anshan’. He made allegations in the complaint against the respondents that they instigated the innocent persons of India who collected in a large number in Ram Leela Ground on 16.8.2011 where the respondents made false speeches against the Govt. of India, Prime Minister, Minister and MPs and on being instigated, the public persons collected there, disturbed the peace in the locality, traffic and also created nuisance which caused many problems to the public. He ...
Shri Satya Pal Aggarwal Vs. Shri Rajinder Kumar and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2012
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 29.1.2004. By the impugned judgment the suit of the appellant/plaintiff seeking partition was dismissed taking note of the facts which emerge on record showing that the appellant/plaintiff himself was signatory to two documents, Ex.DW1/1 (dated 14.1.1987) and Ex.DW1/2 (dated 17.2.1985) which showed that the division of the properties had already taken place between the family members of late Sh. Rama Nand Aggarwal. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the properties which fell to the share of his father-Sh. Rama Nand Aggarwal. Appellant/plaintiff and defendant Nos.10 and 11 were children of Sh. Rama Nand Aggarwal through the first wife Smt. Manbo Devi. Sh. Rama Nand Aggarwal was the son of Sh. Ram Parshad. Sh. Ram Parshad had another...
Delhi Subordinate Services Selecltion Board Through Its Secretary Vs. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2012
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. (ORAL) CAV 464/2012 The caveat stands discharged inasmuch as the learned counsel for the caveator/ respondent No.1 is present. CM 5740/2012 Allowed subject to all just exceptions. WP(C) 2669/2012 and CM 5739/2012 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 03.01.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA 1497/2011. The respondent No.1 had approached the Tribunal by way of the said Original Application inasmuch as he was aggrieved by the fact that his name had not been included in the select list issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) as he had not been considered as an ‘Ex-Serviceman’. 2. We may point out, at the outset, that while the issue before the Tribunal centered around the question of whether the respondent No.1 would be covered by the expression ‘Ex-Servicemen’ or not, that aspect of the matter is not being agitated by the learned counsel for the pet...
Sewa Singh Bhamra Vs. Harcharan Kaur and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2012
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral) 1. Order impugned before this Court is the order dated 04.09.2011 whereby the trial Court had granted leave to defend to the tenant in pending eviction proceedings us 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA). 2. Record shows that the present eviction has been filed by the landlord Sewa Singh through his attorney holder Surinder Singh under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRCA seeking eviction of his tenant from two shops, one shop on the ground floor as also the first floor of suit property bearing No. WZ/27-A (J-85), Milap Market, Beriwala Bagh, Hari Nagar, New Delhi which had been tenanted out to the tenant; initially the area under occupation of the tenant was only two shops on the ground floor; later on first floor was also let out to the tenant for his residence. Grounds of eviction are contained in para 18(a). It has specifically averred that the petitioner is the husband of Satwant Kaur who was the original owner of the aforenoted property; vide her Wil...
Hav. Avinash U. Pardeshi Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2012
1. This OA was filed in the Armed Forces Tribunal on 15.03.2011 and was registered as OA No.112/2011. 2. Vide this OA, the applicant has sought quashing of the order of court martial alongwith the show cause notice (Annexure P-6) and also challenged the order of dismissal dated 08.09.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed thereon. He has also sought directions to the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service, with all consequential benefits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 01.01.1995. Applicant was a musician by trade. He was charged for abetment of offence committed by L/NK M. Suresh Babu in respect of sale of five passports prepared for visit to Germany to a civilian Mr. Nagarajan. He was also charged for visiting Embassy of Germany without proper authority and clearance, in contravention of existing orders. 4. Consequently, a court of inquiry was held, the applicant was served with a show cause notice on 23.06.2010 by the GOC, HQ Delh...
Ex L/Nk M. Suresh Babu Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2012
1. This OA was filed in the Armed Forces Tribunal on 21.12.2010 and was registered as OA No.729/2010. 2. Vide this OA, the applicant has sought quashing of the discharge order dated 26.11.2010 by which his services were dismissed, with further prayer for reinstatement with all consequential benefits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 25.02.1997. Applicant was a musician by trade. An incident took place on 07.11.2007 in which a case was registered as Crime No.SI82007E0006. The allegation against him was that he was involved in fraudulently selling official passports to civilians. This case was registered by Police under Sections 419, 420, 467, 471 of IPC read with Section 12 and 13(2) of the Passport Act read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act alongwith other accused persons who were not associated with Defence Services. 4. It has been stated that due to registration of the false case, the Army authorities took the ap...
Bular Pal Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through the Chief Secretary, New S ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2012
G.George Paracken, M(J) The applicant is aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 03.12.2009 and 18.11.2010 of the disciplinary authority and appellate authority respectively in the proceedings initiated against him under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Even though, the penalty of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect imposed upon him by the Disciplinary Authority was reduced to just a ‘Censure’, by the Appellate Authority, his contention is that he deserves no punishment at all in the present case. 2. The brief factual matrix are delineated here. While the applicant was working as a Driver with the then ADM (West) Shri Devesh Singh w.e.f. 24.04.2001, he was served with the Annexure-A7 Memorandum dated 16.5.2001. The charges leveled against the applicant were that he reported for duty late on 30.04.2001 and 02.05.2001 without prior intimation and authorization and when Sh. Devesh Singh asked him the reasons for the same, applicant mis-behaved with him and u...
Rohtash Kumar Vs. the Delhi Transport Corporation Through Its Chairman ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2012
By Shailendra Pandey, Member (A): The grievance of the applicant, in this OA, is that he has been refused/denied duty w.e.f. 27.03.2012. He has, therefore, filed this OA seeking the following reliefs: The respondents be directed to forthwith assign duty to the applicant and allow him to discharge his duty regularly without any hindrance/obstruction etc. with further directions to the respondents to accord all consequential benefits to the applicant including continuity of service, payment of salary/wages etc.. The respondents be further directed to discard the adverse medical opinion of the DTC Doctor and get the applicant medically examined by an independent board at any Govt. hospital to ascertain his medical fitness, if required. Allow the cost of the proceedings Any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2.1. The brief facts of the case, as set out in the OA, are that the applicant had been employed as Driver in the Delhi Transport Corpora...
- ‹ Prev
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- Next ›
- Last »