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.
Rajinder Singh Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2012
By Shailendra Pandey, Member (J): This Contempt Petition has been filed for alleged non-implementation of the order of this Tribunal dated 9.1.2012 passed in OA No.2911/2011 and MA 58/2012. The operative part of the order is as under: “MA 58/2012: This MA has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to restrain the respondent authority to take any further action on the show cause notice dated 19.12.2011 issued to him. We find that the OA has been filed with a prayer that the period from 28.04.1999 to 03.09.1999 should be treated as on duty and he should be paid salary for this period. The grievance of the applicant is that he was called to the Office of the Deputy Director on 28.04.1999. Pursuant to the direction, he joined the Office of the Deputy Director on 29.04.1999. He was not assigned any duty until final order was issued at annexure A-9 where it has been clearly stated that he was posted at Govt. Boys Sr. Secondary School, Padam Nagar with effect from 28.04.1999. H...
Shailender Kumar and Others Vs. Delhi High Court (Through Registrar Ge ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2012
1. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the District Judge-I and Sessions Judge, Delhi, the petitioners applied for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the District and Sessions Court, Delhi. The petitioners were issued offers of appointment dated 15.09.2003, 15.11.2003 and 12.12.2003 respectively. On their accepting the offers vide letters dated 01.10.2003, 04.12.2003 and 22.12.2003 respectively, they were medically examined on 31.10.2003, 10.12.2003 and 02.01.2004 respectively. Verification report with respect to character was received by 09.02.2004 in respect of petitioner No. 1, on 02.01.2004 in respect of petitioner No. 2 and on 29.01.2004 in respect of petitioner No. 3. The petitioners joined service on 20.02.2004, 16.02.2004 and 11.02.2004 respectively. Some of the candidates, who were issued appointment letters on the same dates on which such letters were issued to the petitioners, joined on or before 31.12.2003 because their medical examination had been ...
Arun Saroha and Another Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2012
PRATIBHA RANI, J. (ORAL) 1. This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners impugning the order dated 4th May, 2011 vide which they were ordered to be charged for committing the offence punishable under Section 308/323/34 IPC. 2. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, it is necessary to look into the facts of the case leading to registration of FIR No.529/2009 at PS Prashant Vihar against these petitioners. As per the complaint made by Raj Dev Singh before the police, on 7th September, 2009 the complainant alongwith his friend Mannu was going to DDA Market, D-Block at about 10.00 PM when one motorcycle bearing registration No.DL- 8S-AK-0650 came from the front and touched their car. The motorcycle was driven by the petitioner Arun Saroha and when he was asked to drive it properly, there was some hot words exchange. Arun Saroha left the spot in an angry mood and returned after about 15 minutes alongwith his companion Vijay and one othe...
Aditya Khanna Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2012
R.V. EASWAR, J. 1. This writ petition under Section 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Aditya Khanna, who is a non-resident individual. The petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other order/writ /direction to quash the notice issued by the respondent, who is the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-V, New Delhi, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on 17.2.2009. A prayer is also made for quashing the letter/order dated 20.11.2009 issued by the respondent rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner to the notice. 2. The following are the brief facts which have given rise to the present petition. For the assessment years 2002-03 the petitioner filed a return of income in the status of a non-resident and declared property income and interest income therein. It would appear that the return was accepted under Section 143(1) of the Act. On 17th February, 2009 the respondent issued a notice u...
Suresh Kumar Vs. Yudhveer Prasad and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2012
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral) 1. The impugned order is dated 30.11.2011; the eviction petition filed by the landlord Yudhveer Prashad seeking eviction of his tenant Suresh Kumar from the suit premises i.e. shop No. 7781, Aarakashan Road, Gali No. 3, Ram Nagar, Paharganj, New Delhi under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been decreed; the application seeking leave to defend had been declined. 2. Today an application has been filed on record wherein it is alleged that certain subsequent events have occurred during the pendency of the petition; it is imperative to bring these facts before this Court; the said facts being that the eviction petition filed by the co-brother/co-landlord qua the shop No.7783, Aarakashan Road, Gali No. 3, Ram Nagar, Paharganj, New Delhi has since been ordered to be vacated by the Apex Court in terms of the order of the Apex Court dated 04.07.2011. Contention of the petitioner is that this is a subsequent fact which has to be brought to the...
Delhi Jal Board Vs. M/S. Rajora Builders and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2012
1. The challenge by Delhi Jal Board (‘DJB’) under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) is to an Award dated 26th September 2011 passed by the sole Arbitrator in the disputes between DJB and Respondent No.1 M/s. Rajora Builders arsing out of an work order dated 30th August 2000 whereunder Respondent No.1 was to replace the old damaged AC/PVC/CI water lines by 100/150 mm dia water lines in various parts of West Zone in Delhi. 2. The total cost of the works was Rs.7,22,31,217. The stipulated date of start of the work was 10th September 2000 and the date of completion was 9th September 2002. According to DJB, even though there was no impediment in the execution of the work, Respondent No.1 delayed the execution because of poor planning and mismanagement. According to DJB, specific reasons for the delay in execution of the work were non-deployment of specified labour, delay in construction of chambers for sluice valves, interconnection wit...
Puran Chandra Mathpal Vs. Uoi and Others.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2012
A.K. SIKRI, J. 1. The writ petition was filed impugning the Award No.4/97-98 dated 5th December, 1997 of the Collector, Land Acquisition, on the ground of being in violation of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated 26th November, 2002, finding that the Notifications under Section 4and6 of the Act were issued on 6th April, 1964 and 7th December, 1966 respectively; Notification under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act was issued on 22nd August, 1983; W.P.(C) No.562-563/1983 was filed by the residents of the village and W.P.(C) 810/1984 filed by the predecessor of the petitioner, both challenging the acquisition proceedings and in which writ petitions there was a stay against dispossession; the predecessor of the petitioner withdrew WP(C) 810/1984 on 25th July, 1989 and accordingly the said stay stood vacated on 25th July, 1989; that the petitioner purchased about 200 sq. yds of land on 20th September, 1995 i.e. when neither any challen...
In the Matter of Jasmeet Singh Vs. Guru Nanak Institute of Management ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2012
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition praying inter alia for setting aside the order dated 09.04.2012 passed by the respondent No.1/Institute, cancelling his admission in the Master of Computer Applications (MCA) course on the ground of non-submission of his final year graduation results within the submission date. 2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was enrolled as a student in the Bachelor of Computer Applications (BCA) course in the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar for a three year course spread over the academic years 2008-09 to 2010-11. On 06.08.2011, the petitioner had applied for admission to the MCA course with the respondent No.2/University and on the basis of his CET ranking, he was granted provisional admission in the respondent No.1/Institute. 3. One of the conditions stipulated by the respondent No.2/University in the Admission Brochure was that the candidates appearing in the qualifying examination would...
Si. B.D. Sharma Vs. Jagmohan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2012
PRATIBHA RANI, J. (ORAL) 1. This criminal revision petition has been preferred by SI B.D.Sharma, impugning the directions given by learned ASJ to SHO P.S. New Ashok Nagar vide order dated 16th September, 2006, to register a case against the petitioner and with further directions to get the investigation conducted by an Officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police. 2. Succinctly stated the facts leading to registration of FIR No.161/2005 under Section 302 IPC P.S. New Ashok Nagar, are that one Nazira @ Munni, after divorce from her first husband married the accused Jagmohan and started living with him. She also had a son, namely, Gulab from her previous husband. On 18th August, 2004, when she returned from her work, she found her husband Jagmohan present at home but Gulab was lying unconscious. She took her son to LBS Hospital, Khichiripur, Delhi, where he was declared brought dead. 3. The post mortem conducted on the body of Gulab by Dr.Vinay Kumar Singh revealed that...
Jaspal Singh Ahula Vs. Manoj Kumar and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of Rs. 95,500/- awarded to the Appellant for having suffered injuries in a motor accident which occurred on 11.12.1996 while the Appellant was proceeding to his office on his two wheeler No.CHP-3451. 2. The Appellant suffered multiple fractures on his forehead and injury on his right eye. He remained admitted in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital form 11.12.1996 to 20.12.1996. The Appellant approached Sankara Nethralaya, Madras and on 20.12.1996 Dr. S.S. Badrinath opined that there was no possibility of recovery of the vision in Appellant’s left eye. A Disability Certificate dated 04.08.1997 was issued by Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital (Ex.PW-1/5) stating that the Appellant had suffered permanent disability of vision to the extent of 30% because of loss of vision in the left eye. As per the Disability Certificate Ex.PW-1/5, the Appellant was on artificial eye (L). 3. The Appellant was a qualified Engineer at the time ...
- ‹ Prev
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- Next ›
- Last »