Delhi Court May 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 7 of about 438 results (0.036 seconds)Awaaz Foundation, Public Charitable Trust, Mumbai and Another Vs. Stat ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Sumaira Abdulali-2nd Applicant in this Application is Managing Trustee of 1st Applicant which is a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The Applicants claim to be activists in the environmental field. They claim that they have ventilated several issues of public interest in the Hon'ble High Court and Apex Court so as to protest public interest. 2. Originally, the Applicants filed Writ Petition (PIL) No. 138 of 2006 in the Hon'ble Court of Judicature at Bombay. By that petition, they raised issues pertaining to illegal extraction of sand from Sea belt in blatant violation of CRZ Notification of 1991, illegal dredging activities in the coastal and River areas, of the State of Maharashtra, inaction on part of the authorities to control the illegal activities of illegal sand mining/dredging of sand, transportation thereof. 3. By order dated October 11th, 2013, Hon'ble High Court of Judicature, at Bombay was pleased to transfer the Writ Petit...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Shetye, General Secretary, All India Port and Dock Workers' Feder ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The Application No.17(THC)/2013 was originally filed as Writ Petition No.153/2010 in the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Goa, which was transferred to this Tribunal vide Hon'ble High Court Order dated 17th October 2013 along with the Writ Petition No. 812 of 2010, which was originally filed in the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, Bench at Goa, and registered as Application No.20(THC)/2013 with the Tribunal. Both these matters were transferred keeping all the rights and contentions of the parties including question of maintainability of the Applications open. 2. Both these Applications relate to a dispute regarding location of Municipal Solid Waste Disposal site of Mormugao Municipal Council and associated (J) Appln. No.17(THC) of 2013 (WZ)and 20(THC)/2013 (National Green Tribunal, (WZ) Pune activities, and non-compliance of provisions of the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000, and Coastal Zone Regulations of 1991. We deem it proper to deal both these matters tog...
Tag this Judgment!W/Ct.(Ex.) Ritu Chaudhary, Delhi Vs. Staff Selection Commission Throug ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
(Oral). Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A). 1. This Review Application has been filed for correction of a minor error that has crept in our order dated 23.04.2014 in OA-3835/2013. 2. Learned counsel for the review applicant argued that the applicant had already cleared the examination Part-I but had not been declared qualified in Part-II relating to physical standards. The Tribunal while allowing the O.A. has inadvertently ordered conduct of the entire PET examination again instead of restricting the fresh PET examination only to physical standards. Learned counsel for the respondents has not opposed the plea of the review applicant. 3. We have considered the submissions of the review applicant and we are convinced that first line of Para-5 of our order should read as Under these circumstances, we allow this O.A. and direct Delhi Police to get fresh PET Examination Part-II Physical standards of the applicant conducted by BSF. This Review Application is accordingly allowed and Registry is dire...
Tag this Judgment!Narender Singh, Delhi and Others Vs. Upsc, New Delhi and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Ashok Kumar, Member (A): 1. The present OAs bearing Nos.3080 of 2013, 3155 of 2013, 3165 of 2013, 3219 of 2013, 3171 of 2013, 3250 of 2013, 3251 of 2013, 3663 of 2013 and 3269 of 2013 have been heard together on the request of counsel for the parties on the ground that the issues and reliefs claimed in these OAs are identical. Common arguments were made by the counsel of both sides in the aforenoted cases. The respondents are also common. In view of above, we are disposing of all these OAs by this common order. The leading case adopted for considering the pleadings as well as documents is OA No.3080/2013. OA No.3080 of 2013 2. The applicants, who are serving as PGT/TGT under the Directorate of Education (DOE), Govt. of NCT of Delhi (GNCT) are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not allowing them to appear in the interview for appointment to the post of Principal, DOE, GNCT. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Respondent No.1 issued advertisement for appointment to t...
Tag this Judgment!R K Budhiraja Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. No.1019/2013 Date of decision:29. h May, 2014 R K BUDHIRAJA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Vikram Singh, Adv. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. M.P. Singh, APP for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH VED PRAKASH VAISH, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C) seeking quashing of FIR No.154/2009 under Sections 182/219/220/342/365/120B/34 IPC registered at Police Station Keshav Puram.2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that on 28.09.2006, Head Constable Rameshwar along with Constable Amar Singh and Constable Jai Singh were on patrolling when they were reached near Prem Bari Pul within the jurisdiction of police station Keshav Puram one person was nabbed, whose identity was later on revealed as Sunil Kumar Dahiya (respondent no.3). During his search, one country made pistol and one...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. M.M. Knitwears Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S.C. Jain, Member: 1) The facts of the case are that the complainant is a Pvt. Ltd. company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at New Delhi and engaged in the business of manufacturing of readymade garments and woollen knit wear. 2) The complaint through their banker namely Punjab National Bank, took fire policy in the sum of Rs. 2.20 Crores on 7thNovember 2006 for one year. It was further stated that on 26thDecember, 2006 at about 6.00 pm a fire broke out in the premises of the complainant factory which had been insured under the fire policy. Immediately the OP No. 2 had been informed by the complainant about the fire and the bank on its turn informed the OP No. 1 about incident of fire. The Fire Brigade was also called to control and extinguish the fire. It is further case of complainant that the surveyor came to visit the site only on 27thDecember 2006 at about 6.30 pm i.e. after more than 24 hours of breaking out the fire and receiving the ...
Tag this Judgment!Amit Chawla Vs. M/S. Parsvnath Developers Ltd.
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S.A. Siddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1) Complainant Sh. Amit Chawla has filed this Consumer Complaint u/s 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter called the Act) against the OP-Parsvnath Developers Ltd. for payment of Rs. 24,49,276/- comprising Rs. 14,49,276/- as interest calculated @ 24% plus Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. The complainant further claimed a sum of Rs. 5 Lac towards compensation on account of deficiency of service/negligence and cost as well. 2) Relevant facts of the case are that the OP is a developer who constructs flats, villas, houses etc. the OP issued a pre plan of residential project in the year 2006. The complainant booked three bedroom apartment in the above mentioned upcoming project and paid a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- as advance payment. Complainant filed an advance registration form consisting of terms and conditions. One of the terms was that OP will offer a residential apartment to buyers within a period of six months and this advance amount will be a...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Jyoti Khurana Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S.C. Jain, Member: 1. The Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 2. The facts which are mentioned in the present complaint are that the complainant in the month of May-June 2006 took a loan (Personal) to the Tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rs. Three Lac Only) from OP. The said Loan was disbursed on 26.06.2006 by the OP, after execution of an agreement bearing No. 5255. As per the said loan agreement the first E.M.I. was due and payable in the month of July 2006 and the last E.M.I. was due and payable in December 2008. The period of loan was 30 months starting from July 2006 and ending in December 2008, as such Advance P.D.C.(Post Dated Cheques) amounting to Rs. 12,272/- each, were duly handed over to the OP by the complainant , IN ADVANCE, before the personal loan was disbursed. 3. The complainants father was not keeping good health as such around February 2007 the complainant decided to fully REPAY the above mentioned Personal Loan. Accordin...
Tag this Judgment!Hritikesh Arun Nazre and Another Vs. Municipal Commissioner, Nashik Mu ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
1. This is an Application filed by two Applicants, seeking certain reliefs stated as below: a). œThat the Honble Tribunal be pleased to call the paper in procedure relating to constitution, formulation and particulars about the tree committee and its decision and after perusing the same be pleased to declare that the tree committee itself is illegal and its decision of cutting approx. 3500 trees in the city of Nashik is itself ultra-virus and void ab-initio. b). The mandatory direction to form the proper and legal tree authority, c). The Respondent No.1 and 2 be restrained from implementing the alleged illegal decision of the tree committee for cutting approx. 3500 trees within Nashik. d). That mandatory direction to perform immediate tree-census and audit before cutting any tree be given.? 2. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the Authorities of Nashik Municipal Corporation. The reply affidavit has been filed on their behalf. According to them the stand taken by Respondent Nos. 1 to...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Kumar, Delhi Vs. B.K. Gupta, General Manager, Baroda House, New ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
(Oral). George Paracken, Member (J): 1. This Contempt Petition has been filed for the alleged non implementation of the order of this Tribunal dated 22.11.2013 in OA No.3845/2013. The said order reads as under :- According to the applicants counsel similar case i.e. OA No.2965/2013 is listed for hearing on 29.11.2013. Accordingly, issue notice to the respondents in this case also returnable on the same date i.e., 29.11.2013. Meanwhile, no adverse action shall be taken against the applicant pursuant to the impugned letter dated 09.10.2013. Order dasti. 2. According to the applicant, after the aforesaid order has been passed and in violation of the same, the respondents have issued Memorandum No.E-142/809/S.Cell/P dated 27.03.2014 proposing to hold an enquiry against him under Rule 9 of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. 3. In our considered view, the aforesaid Memorandum is not an adverse order against the applicant. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this Contem...
Tag this Judgment!