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.
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. ...
Mohinder Kumar Verma Vs. Ld. District Judge-i and Session Judge, Tis H ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) W.P.(C) 1027/2010 1. Vide the instant petition, petitioner has sought quashing of order dated 28.10.2010 passed by respondent no. 2, where the right of cross-examination of the petitioner was closed in respect of the witnesses produced by the department. 2. Petitioner had filed an application seeking adjournment on the ground that he had requested the Department to provide legal assistance in the matter, however, that request was declined by the ld. District and Sessions Judge. 3. Being aggrieved, he filed an appeal against the said order before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court on administrative side, however the same was also been declined. 4. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a W.P. (C) no. 13907 on 27.01.2010, after that he submitted before the ld. District and Sessions Judge that the aforesaid Writ Petition not yet been listed for hearing, however, the same is likely to be listed soon and prayed that his Departmental Enquiry be adjourned and be taken...
In the Matter of Utility Engg. (i) Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2012
MANMOHAN,J. (Oral) CO.APPL.1017/2012 Present application has been filed by the applicant, who was the second highest bidder in the auction conducted by this Court on 13th October, 2011, for refund of its earnest money. The facts of the present application are that on 13th October, 2011 this Court after conducting an auction had accepted the highest bid of Rs.42,00,000/- of M/s Manasvi Realtors Pvt. Ltd. whereas the applicant, being the second highest bidder with a bid of Rs.40,60,000/-, was directed to comply with the terms of the auction as mentioned in the sale notice. The relevant terms of the sale notice are reproduced hereinbelow: “7. That the tenderers whose tender / bid is accepted shall have to deposit with the Official Liquidator a sum of 25% (excluding earnest money) of the bid amount by pay order / demand draft within seven days from the date of acceptance of tender / bid failing which the entire earnest money shall stand forfeited. The balance of the tender / bid amou...
Krishan Gopal and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2012
A.K. SIKRI, ACJ. 1. In both the petitions, the petitioners are the employees of Jawaharlal Nehru University working as Deputy Librarian and Directors of Physical Education (DPE). They are seeking a declaration that their status be treated as that of a “teacher’and, therefore, the Notification dated 31.12.2008 vide which retirement age of teachers is fixed at 65 years should be made applicable to them also. Since this Notification specifically excludes library staff as well as staff of physical education, prayers are also made for declaring the exclusionary part of the Notification as unconstitutional. 2. Vide impugned Notification dated 31.12.2008, the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Higher Education), Government of India has decided to revise the pay scales and other service conditions of the teachers in Central Universities. Since we are not concerned with revision of pay scale or other service conditions but the limited scope of these writ petitions...
Santosh Malhotra Vs. Ved Prakash Malhotra and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 CrPC assails the order dated 23.8.2008 of ASJ passed in criminal revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the M.M. dated 8.3.2007. 2. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent No. 1 and the mother of the respondents No. 2 and 3. She filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC against them seeking maintenance. In the said case, the learned M.M. declined the request of the petitioner for grant of interim maintenance vide his order dated 8.3.2007. The said order was taken in revision by the petitioner in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, who vide the impugned order dated 23.8.2008 granted interim maintenance to the petitioner against her husband (respondent No. 1) at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month from the date of the filing of the application. The petitioner has challenged the said order of the ASJ in the present petition and seeks enhancement of compensation against her husband (respondent No.1) as also compensation a...
Kishan Pal Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2012
ANIL KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner has sought review of order dated 30th January, 2012 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.11925/2009 dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner challenging the charge sheet dated 11th March, 2006, enquiry report, order dated 9th September, 2006, order dated 6/7th December, 2006, show cause notice dated 6th March, 2007, order dated 29th May, 2007 and order dated 5th November, 2007 passed by the respondents. The petitioner had also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to reinstate him in service with all the consequential benefits of pay, arrears of pay-salary and seniority etc. and to treat his suspension period from 9th September, 2006 till the date of reinstatement as period spent on duty for all intents and purposes. The writ petition was dismissed and all the reliefs claimed by the petitioner were declined. 2. The petitioner/applicant has sought the review of order dated 30th January, 2012 dismissing hi...
M/S. J.K. Cement Works Vs. Delhi Jal Board
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2012
JUDGMENT 1. These are objections by M/s J.K. Cement Works under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (‘1940 Act’) challenging an Award dated 7th April 2004 of the sole Arbitrator in the disputes between the Petitioner and the Respondent Delhi Jal Board (‘ DJB’ ) arising out of an Agreement dated 31st October 1990 whereunder the Petitioner was to supply the Respondent 40000 metric tonnes (‘ MT’) of cement at a total cost of Rs. 6.84 crores. By the impugned Award dated 7th April 2004 the Respondent DJB was awarded a sum of Rs. 66,51,390 together with pendente lite and post-Award interest at 10% per annum and the costs of Rs. 2,95,500. 2. Pursuant to the Agreement, a Work Order was issued by the DJB on 10th October 1990. The Petitioner was to supply 8000 MT of cement every month. Till 8th March 1991 only 5235 MT of cement was supplied and thereafter the supply stopped. Despite several letters, when no cement was supplied, DJB served a s...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Meenakshi Khosla
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2012
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM No.8851/2012 (Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. CM stands disposed of. RFA 218/2012 and CM 8816/2012 (stay) 1. This appeal was argued in detail by the earlier counsel Mr. Suresh Sharma, Advocate on 14.5.2012. At the stage of passing of the judgment for dismissing of the appeal, the earlier counsel took adjournment to take instructions if the decretal amount can be paid with a slightly lesser rate of interest. Today, however, new counsel appears and, wants to again argue the matter. In my opinion, this is an unacceptable practice. I cannot allow appeals to be argued afresh on each hearing merely because a new counsel appears and seeks to re-argue the matter. 2. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 31.1.2012 decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff/landlord for dues towards the maintenance charges whic...
Shri Gajender Singh and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2012
1. The OA No.272/2011 was filed in the Armed Forces Tribunal on 19.07.2011 and OA No.267/2011 was filed on 13.07.2011 respectively. By way of this common order, we shall hereby dispose off both the above mentioned OAs bearing OA No.272/2011 and 267/2011 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.272/2011 filed by Shri Gajender Singh is being taken first. The applicant in this OA has prayed to set aside his discharge order dated 20.12.2010 and further prayed for reinstatement in service from the date of illegal and premature discharge i.e. 20.12.2010 with all consequential benefits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was enrolled in the Navy as a Cook NMER on 19.05.1988. During his service he was posted to various Naval establishments. 4. It is submitted by the learned...
Hav (Clk) Mokha Ram Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2012
1. The case was initially filed before the Honble High Court of Delhi on 01.05.2009 as WP (C) No.8767 of 2009 and was subsequently transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal on 02.05.2009. 2. Vide this petition the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside of the impugned order dated 10.07.1993 (Annexure P-2) by which he was discharged with effect from 01.01.1994 (Annexure P-5) and the orders passed on his representations dated 24.07.1995 and 16.11.2001 on 13.08.2001 and 03.12.2001 respectively and also order of rejection on his last representation dated 13.02.2009 on 09.03.2009 (Annexure P-16). He has also challenged the review medical board report dated 28.08.2006 (Annexure P-15). The applicant has prayed that he be granted entire arrears of pay and allowances and other monetary benefits as deemed appropriate and be treated his discharge w.e.f. 31.05.2004 when he would have attained 24 years of colour service as a Havildar. The applicant has also sought directions for the res...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »