Delhi Court May 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Seema Tiwari Vs. Preet Public Sr. Sec. School and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) CM 6461/2012(exemption) Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. CM stands disposed of. W.P.(C) No.3001/2012 1. Notice issued. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for parties, instant petition taken up for disposal. 3. Vide instant petition, the petitioner is seeking the quashing of the order dated 04.11.2011 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Delhi School Tribunal. 4. It is further prayed, consequently, the petitioner may be reinstated in the services of respondent No.1 i.e. Preet Public Senior Secondary School, Preet Vihar, Delhi. 5. The article of charge against the petitioner is as under:- “Statement of Articles of Charges framed against Smt.Seema Tewari, Asstt. Teacher, Preet Public Secondary School, Preet Vihar, Delhi – 110092. Article –I Smt.Seema Tewari, Asstt. Teacher, while functioning in the school has deviated the integrity and adopted malpractices connected with the Annual results of the students for the year 2002-03. She...
Uoi and Others Vs. Master Karan Minor Thr. His Next Friend/Father Sura ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2012
JUDGMENT 1. The appellants have challenged the impugned judgment whereby the learned Trial Court has awarded compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to respondent. The appellants were defendants No.1 to 8 and the respondent was the plaintiff before the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the appellants and the respondent are referred to as per their ranks in the suit as defendants and plaintiff respectively. 2. Plaintiff’s Case 2.1 On 11th May, 2000, at about 10:00 A.M., the plaintiff fell down while playing and suffered compound fracture in his left hand below elbow whereupon his father took him to the emergency of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital where he was referred to the OPD. After the X-ray, the plaintiff’s left hand was plastered and he was asked to report next day. The plaintiff was 12 years old at that time and studying in 7th standard. 2.2 The plaintiff could not sleep for the whole night of 11th May, 2000 due to acute pain and, therefore, his father took him to the...
Anil Kumar Akarnia Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2012
ANIL KUMAR, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that instead of filing the amended writ petition, he has filed the fresh petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to raise his grievances in the W.P.(C) No. 2825/2012 instead of in the above-noted writ petition filed earlier. He also seeks to withdraw the above-noted writ petition. 2. In view of the Writ Petition(C) No.2825/2012 filed by the petitioner after filing of present writ petition, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the present Writ Petition (C) No.2617/2012 with liberty to raise all his disputes in W.P.(C) No. 2825/2012. 3. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for....
M/S Upvan Steel Tubes Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. M/S Tube Investments o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2012
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 29.8.2007 decreeing the suit for recovery filed under Order 37 CPC of the respondent/plaintiff for a sum of Rs.14,01,320/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest at 9% per annum simple. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff was the seller and the appellant No. 1/defendant company was the buyer of tubes and tubular goods made of steel and other metals. The respondent/plaintiff claimed that a sum of Rs.11,99,209/- became payable as per invoices which were annexed with the plaint as annexure 3 to 16 and also because the appellant had acknowledged the debts in writing under the signatures of the Director of the appellant No. 1/defendant company, being a sum of Rs.8,37,799/- with respect to the Delhi branch; and a sum of Rs.4,65,366.25 with respect to the Noida branc...
Angoori Devi Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J. 1. The present petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (i) Direct the registration of FIR on the complaint dated 9th March, 2011 and transfer of investigation to CBI or to a Special Investigation Team(SIT) constituted by this Hon’ble Court. (ii) Award the appropriate damages and compensation to the Complainant. (iii) Initiate the proceedings for contempt and perjury against the responsible officers of the Army for misleading the Court for deliberately suppressing the facts and for filing a false affidavit. 2. The Petitioner is aggrieved of the death of her husband Havildar Ram Swaroop who was posted in Army Intelligence Corp. as Non-Commissioned Officer(NCO) at Redfort, Delhi. When he was availing his leave and was staying at his village, he was summoned to his unit on the ground of immediate requirement on duty. After about a month, the Petitioner heard about the death of her husband. The Petitioner alleged...
Chander Dutt Vs. Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2012
P.K.BHASIN, J. 1. By way of this writ petition the petitioner, who was employed as a peon with the respondent, had challenged the award dated 23-07-2010 in ID Case No. 9/2007 whereby the relief of re-instatement in service with back wages was denied to him by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-I(‘the tribunal’ in short) even after coming to the conclusion that his services had been illegally terminated by the respondent and only a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 25,000/- was awarded to him. 2. The petitioner was employed as a peon on daily wages with the respondent. His services were terminated w.e.f. 01.05.2004. He had then approached the competent authorities for his re-instatement in service but since he could not get that relief the dispute between him and the respondent was referred for adjudication to the Tribunal vide Reference order dated 25th January, 2007 with the following term of reference:- “Whether the action of the management of Nehru Yuva Kendra S...
Hira Lal Vs. the State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment dated 2.02.2012 passed by the ld. ASJ whereby the conviction of the petitioner under Section 304-A as recorded by the ld. M.M. vide order dated 11.06.2009, was upheld. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 15.10.1994 at about 3.15 p.m. at Outer Ring Road, Mangolpuri, Delhi, the petitioner was driving a truck bearing registration no. DIG-3698 in a rash and negligent manner and struck a bicycle going in front of it resulting in the death of two persons. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the trial Court under Sections 279/304-A IPC to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty. 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution including one eye witness PW-1, Ramesh Pandey who was also the complainant and was stated to be riding his bicycle behind the deceased persons. On the basis of evidence on record, the trial C...
Air India Ltd Vs. Govt. of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2012
A.K. SIKRI (Acting Chief Justice) 1. The controversy involved in these intra-Court appeals questioning the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is in a narrow compass and has arisen in the following factual backdrop. The matter goes back to the year, 1990 when the appellant herein had issued Notification inviting applications for filling up of certain vacancies in the category of Helper Engineer. A panel was prepared in the year 1990 itself, of the selected candidates. The validity of this panel was for a period of two years. Selected candidates were offered appointment, on the basis of their merits, from time to time as and when vacancies arose. The term of the panel was extended and it finally expired on 15.7.1994. No further appointments were made on regular basis from this panel. The appellant had also engaged different categories of casual workers. A series of writ petitions were filed by many such casual workers in this Court seeking regularization of their services. These...
United Biotech Pvt. Ltd Vs. Orchid Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2012
A.K. SIKRI (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant herein got registration of trademark FORZID under No.1144258 dated 18.10.2002 in Class – 5 questioning this registration in favour of the appellant, the respondent herein filed application for removal of the aforesaid trademark FORZID or rectification of register under Sections 9, 11, 18, 57 and 125 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). To put it in brief, the removal was sought on the ground that the said trademark FORZID was deceptively similar to an earlier registered trademark, viz., ORZID (label mark), standing registered in the name of the respondent No.1 in Class – 5. The plea of the respondent herein was accepted by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (“IPAB”for brevity) vide decision dated 14.10.2008. The IPAB allowed the rectification application with direction to the Registrar of the Trademarks to remove the trademark FORZID belonging to the appellant fr...
ike S. Gill Vs. Govind S. Gill and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2012
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. 1. By this order, I shall dispose of IA No.1082/2012 filed by the plaintiff seeking temporary restraint order restraining the defendants from seeking/effecting the registration of any gift deed with respect to the suit property or in any manner transferring or creating any rights with respect to the suit property in favour of defendant No. 1 during the pendency of the suit. 2. The brief facts of the case which lead to the filing of the present application are enunciated as under: a) The plaintiff is the son of defendant No. 2, Smt, Bhagwant Rani Gill (hereinafter referred as Rani Gill). It is stated in the plaint that Rani Gill was married to Air Commodore Padam Singh Gill and out of the said wedlock, the following children were born: * Shri Govind Singh Gill – Defendant No. 1 * Smt. Sartaj Kaur Gill * Shri. Ike S. Gill – Plaintiff b) It is submitted that the defendant No. 2 was the owner of the built up property admeasuring 800 Square Yards bearing No. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »