Delhi Court June 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.
A.R. Abdul Gaffar Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
A.K. SIKRI (Acting Chief Justice) 1. The reasons for referring this appeal to the Full Bench for consideration are contained in the orders dated 03.7.2012 passed by the Division Bench and for clear understating, we reproduce the same hereunder: “1. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground of non-maintainability holding that National Book Trust is not a „State‟within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. While doing so, the learned Single Judge relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in J.S. Shamim Vs. National Book Trust, (W.P.(C) 1446/1989). 2. A perusal of the said judgment in J.S. Shamim (supra) case would reveal that the Division Bench has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Chander Mohan Khanna Vs. NCERT, AIR 1992 SC 76. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant states that judgment of J.S. Shamim is no longer a good law in view of Constitution Bench judgment (rendere...
Clearwater Capital Partners India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Icici Bank Limited and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. 1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration seeking declaration that Pari Passu Deed dated 22.08.2011 entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 is valid and subsisting and also seeking consequential relief of injunction. The prayers made in the suit reads as under: “a. declare the Pari Passu Deed dated August 22, 2011, executed by and between the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 as valid, subsisting and binding on both defendants herein; b. pass an order and preliminary decree directing defendant No.1 to disclose on affidavit the amounts received by defendant No.1 under the Lender B Finance Documents entered into by and between defendant Nos.1 and 2 from time to time for the facilities set out in Lender B Finance Documents (as defined under the Pari Passu Deed dated August 22, 2011) on and from February 07, 2012 being the Calculation Date till the date of the passing of the decree; c. pass an order and...
Sushila Devi Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the CBI to conduct proper investigation in FIR No. 179/04 registered at P.S. Usman Pur. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the police have not conducted a free and fair investigation in the case and it is imperative in the interest of justice that the matter should be investigated by CBI. Reliance has been placed on J. Prabhavathiamma vs. State of Kerala andOrs. 2008 Crl.455. 3. On the contrary, the learned counsel for CBI has submitted that the charge sheet has already been filed in the matter and investigation of the case was transferred to DIU at the instance of the complainant and now there is no reason for the CBI investigation in the matter. It has been submitted that as the complainant was not satisfied by the investigation conducted by the police and DIU, she approached the Magistrate who has taken co...
Sh. Hansraj Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
ANIL KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the result of the petitioner declared by the respondent (Central Examination Committee) declaring the petitioner as “fail”and for quashing the discharge order dated 12th May, 2010 issued by Deputy Chief Security Commissioner and Chief Security Commissioner and a direction to the respondents directing them to appoint the petitioner to the post of Sub Inspector in RPF Training Centre or in the alternative to grant a second chance to appear in the final written examination. 2. Brief facts to comprehend the disputes are that the petitioner pursuant to an advertisement had applied for the post of Sub Inspector in RPF/RPSF against OBC category. The petitioner alleged that he was found eligible to appear in the written examination. The petitioner appeared in the written examination and he was declared successful and thereafter, he was called for viva voice by letter dated 16th December, 2008. For viva v...
Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
A.K. SIKRI, ACJ. 1. The present petition is being filed by the petitioner by way of a public interest litigation alleging deliberate and misdirected decisions of the Ministry of Civil Aviation ( hereinafter referred to as „MOCA) driving Air India (hereinafter referred to as „AI) and Indian Airlines ( hereinafter referred to as „IA) into heavy losses to the tune of thousand of crores. As per the petitioner, these decisions have led to bail out plans by the Government at the cost of the exchequer and benefited various other entities such as private Indian and foreign airlines. By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking an investigation into this issue. 2. Before dealing with the present case at hand we would like to trace out the history of the Airlines Industry in India: 3. The erstwhile Air India (now termed as NACIL-A) and Indian Airlines (now termed as NACIL-I) were the initial two national carriers operating in India. They were established under the Air Co...
Anand Swaroop Vohra Vs. Bhim Sen Bahri and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
INDERMEET KAUR, J. 1. The impugned judgment is dated 20.05.1998; eviction petition filed by the landlord Anand Swaroop Vohra under Section 14-C of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been dismissed. 2. Record shows that an eviction petition had been filed by the landlord against his tenant Bhim Sen Bahri. His case was that he has retired as an employee of the Central Government i.e. Area Manager Canteen Store Department, Ministry of Defence on 30.04.1987; the premises which are the subject matter of dispute (ground floor of property bearing No. 65/11, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi) had been let out to the aforenoted tenant for a residential purpose and was being used by him accordingly. Contention is that the he along with his brother G.S. Vohra (respondent No. 2) are the joint owners of this property; his brother was also an employee of the Central Government and he had retired from the Ministry of Food and Supply in 1982; he has shifted to the first floor of the building; their third ...
Suman Tuteja Vs. Hindalco Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
A.K. SIKRI, ACJ. 1. The appellant herein (hereinafter referred to as the workman) had challenged her termination from services by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the management) by invoking the machinery provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Conciliation proceedings started which ended in failure and the Government of NCT of Delhi, as „appropriate Government‟, referred the dispute vide orders dated 14.7.1987 for adjudication to the Labour Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi. This reference was decided in favour of the workman as vide award dated 25.11.1999, the learned Labour Court held the termination to be illegal and unjustified and directed reinstatement back in service with continuity of service and full back wages including intervening increments and all other attendant benefits. The management challenged this award by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and vide impugned judgment dated 8...
Cement Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sehgal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
VEENA BIRBAL, J. RSA No. 46/2012 1. By way of this second appeal under Section 100 and Order XLII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the appellant has challenged two concurrent judgments i.e. one dated 01.03.2012 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge in RCA No. 16/2011 and the other dated 15.11.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Delhi in C.S. No. 185/2010. 2. The facts leading to the filing of present appeal are as under:- The respondent herein i.e. plaintiff before the learned Civil Judge, Delhi had filed a suit for possession and mesne profits/damages stating therein that he was the landlord/owner of flat No. G-1 on the ground floor of multi storey building known as CCI House, 87, Nehru Place, Delhi wherein the appellant i.e. defendant before the learned trial court was inducted as a tenant w.e.f. 15.10.1979 by Ms.Janamjeet Kaur. The total monthly rent was Rs. 3,575/-. The period of lease was limited to three years. The terms of lease were red...
Surendra Kumar Tiwari Vs. National thermal Power Corporation Ltd. and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
A.K. SIKRI (ACJ.) 1. The petitioner, who appears in person was an employee of the respondent No.1/National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as „NTPC‟). The petitioner was taken in the employment with NTPC with effect from 29.12.1986. In the year, 2005, when he was working at Bharuch (Gujarat), he was transferred to Uttarkashi (Uttarakhand) vide orders dated 08.10.2004. However, he sent a letter dated 30.10.2004 requesting to remain at Bharuch till 31.3.2005 as his daughters had to give CBSE Board examination. This request was allowed. Vide Office Order No.50/2005 dated 01.4.2005, he was released from Bharuch with effect from 01.4.2005. He did not join the transferred place immediately and reported for joining on 31.5.2005. As per the petitioner, he submitted that he requested for Transfer Travelling Advance in the prescribed format at Bharuch office, but the advance was not released. Instead, letter dated 02.5.2005 was sent to the petitioner by the N...
Britannia New Zealand Foods Pvt. Ltd and Another Vs. Director(Pfa) and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J. 1. The petitioner seeks quashing of Complaint no. 136/PFA/DA/07, titled as “Food Inspector v. S.R. Goyal and Ors” filed under Section 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) pending in the Court of the learned MM and the order dated 18.10.2007 passed in the Complaint and the proceeding emanating there from. 2. The brief facts necessitating the disposal of the present petition are that on 20.03.2006, the Food Inspector visited the shop M/s Anand General and bought three tinned cans of “Cheddar Cheese”. The samples collected were sent for analysis to the public analyst and vide report dated 05.04.2006 the analyst opined that the sample does not conform to the standard milk fat of dried matter and is less than the prescribed minimum limit of 40%. Thereafter, consent for prosecution under Section 20 of the Act was accorded by the Director Prevention of Food Adulteration on 24.08.2007. A c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »