Delhi Court November 2015 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2015 Page 8 of about 129 results (0.022 seconds)Mani Lal Vs. Matchless Industries of India
Court: Delhi
Sunita Gupta, J. 1. The challenge in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 28.03.2008 whereby the preliminary issue regarding enquiry was decided in favour of the respondent and award dated 15.01.2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kakardooma Courts, Delhi in ID No.46/2010 (new) 368/2011 (old) whereby termination of services of the petitioner was held to be legal and justified. 2. The petitioner (hereinafter referred as to the workman') was working as helper with the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the management') since the year 1987. He was suspended on 10.08.1999 and thereafter his services were terminated with effect from 21.05.2000. An industrial dispute was raised by him. The Secretary (Labour), Government of NCT of Delhi vide its order number F.24 (4666)/2000-Lab./2907 “ 11 dated 02.02.2001 referred the industrial dispute to the Labour Court with the following terms of reference: Whet...
Tag this Judgment!Nasir Vs. State
Court: Delhi
R.K. Gauba, J. 1. The appellant stood trial in sessions case No.2/1998 on the charge that on 24.08.1997, fifteen minutes past midnight he had committed the murder of Rafiq by intentionally causing stab injuries. By judgment dated 05.11.1998 he was held guilty and convicted, as charged, primarily on the basis of eye-witness account of Munna (PW-1) and Mohd. Mumtaj (PW-2). By order dated 09.11.1998, the learned trial court sentenced him to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default further rigorous imprisonment for two months. He challenges the said judgment and order on sentence through the appeal at hand. 2. On 24.08.1997 at 01:55 hours Rafiq son of Chhote Khan (the victim), aged 32 years, resident of House no.79, G-Block, New Seelampur, Delhi was brought to the casualty of Swami Dayanand Hospital, Shahdara ( the hospital ?) by a neighbour Mohd. Akhtar (PW-5), in poor general condition, restless, semi-conscious and in a critical state, with a number of incised wounds. He ...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. National Highways Authority of India Vs. M/s. Hindustan Construct ...
Court: Delhi
Gita Mittal, J. (Oral) 1. The appellant “ National Highways Authority of India ( ˜NHAIhereafter) before us assails an order dated 4th July, 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing EA No. 223/2014 in Execution Petition No. 263/2012. 2. The factual narration giving rise to the present appeal is not disputed and to the extent necessary briefly noted hereafter. Three disputes arose out of a contract executed in 2005 between the parties resulting in a reference to arbitration in the year 2009. The arbitration proceedings culminated in an award dated 21st March, 2012 whereby the tribunal accepted the claims of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as HCC') herein and was awarded an amount of Rs.18,70,48,492/- qua dispute no. 1 ; Rs.2,24,60,120/- qua dispute no.2 and Rs.77,87,840/- qua dispute no.3. Interest @ 10% per annum was awarded on the said amounts with effect from due dates till the date of the award and upon failure of the NHAI to pay the amount within 90 day...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Development Authority Vs. Harish Chander
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Harish Chander: the respondent, submitted application No.9534 on December 29, 1989, to the Delhi Development Authority when applications were invited for allotment of a flat in the Janta Category under the Special Housing Registration Scheme for SC/ST Persons-1989. As required, Harish Chander deposited Rs.4,200/- with the Delhi Development Authority. In the application form he gave his residential address as A-330, DDA Janta Flats, Jahangir Puri, Delhi “ 110023 but claims that on December 15, 1997 he intimated change of address to A-405, Shastri Nagar, Ashok Vihar, Delhi - 110052 by sending a letter under ordinary post. Obviously, he has no proof of having sent said letter. He claims that he sent another letter on September 14, 1999 by ordinary post intimating by way of abundant precaution the change of address. He claims that on July 23, 2010 he learnt in response to his application filed under the Right to Information Act that flat No.116-D, Sector-D, K...
Tag this Judgment!Airports Authority of India Vs. Vikas Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Mukta Gupta, J. 1. A writ petition was filed by Vikas Singh, Manish Sava, Mahesh Kumar Meena, Shalia Garg and Jitender Kumar Belwanshi being W.P.(C) No.5767/2011 inter-alia praying for a writ of certiorari seeking quashing of the selection list of July 2011 issued by the Airport Authority of India (in short AAI) herein selecting only 75 candidates for the post of Manager (Electronics) as against 112 post advertised in various categories which resulted in the exclusion of the petitioners from appointment to the post of Manager (Electronics). W.P.(C) No.5767/2011 was followed by another writ petition being W.P.(C) No.3216/2012 filed by Mahender Kumar Arya, Kapil Meena, Sunil Kumar Yadav, Abhishek Chaudhary, Pradeep Kumar Pradhan and Pankaj Kumar, Swaran Kumar praying the same relief. 2. In the Counter affidavit AAI stated that out of the 317 candidates called for interview only 210 candidates appeared out of which 14 candidates did not submit certain essential documents in support of the...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Kaushik Vs. Sunil Kumar
Court: Delhi
CRL.M.C. 3537/2014 1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( ˜Cr.P.C.'), the petitioner seeks setting aside of the impugned order dated 09.06.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ( ˜ASJ'), Delhi, in Criminal Revision No.55/13, whereby the order dated 15.01.2013 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ( ˜MM'), Delhi, summoning the respondent was set aside. 2. Before deciding this petition, it is necessary to narrate the case put forth by the individual party. 3. As per the petitioner, he had filed a written complaint on 28.11.2007 at Police Station Saraswati Vihar, Delhi, against Madan Lal Arora and others for trespass and theft of original property documents from his ancestral property No.WZ-472/343, Shrinagar, Shakurbasti. Accordingly, FIR No.82/2008 was registered at Police Station Saraswati Vihar, Delhi, as per the directions of the Trial Court, on petitioner's application under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Oswal Vs. M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Court: Delhi
V. Kameswar Rao, J. 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to provide the arrears of pension since April 2003 as also the monthly pension; and b. Pass any such further or other order as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances hereof ?. 2. The facts as noted from the petition, are, the petitioner joined the services of the respondent on October 3, 1983 as Development Officer. In the year 1995, the respondent introduced the pension scheme known as General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995. The petitioner gave his option for being covered under the scheme and as such, was a pension optee. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2003, when he had put in 19 years and 6 months, the Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India issued a gazette notification on January 2, 2003 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 1...
Tag this Judgment!Siddharth Jain Vs. Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business Studies and Ano ...
Court: Delhi
WP(C) 9862/2015 and CM No. 23813/2015 PREFATORY FACTS 1. This is a second round of litigation initiated by the petitioner. The petitioner, who is a young adult, approximately, 20 years of age, has approached the court, for the second time. In the first round, he had filed the petition, which was numbered as: WP(C) 7891/2015. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 16.09.2015. 1.1 At that stage, a show cause notice was issued by the Disciplinary Committee, which remained to be adjudicated upon at that relevant point in time. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to an appropriate remedy, albeit in accordance with law, in case, he remained aggrieved by the decision of the Disciplinary Committee. 1.2 Since then, the Disciplinary Committee appointed by respondent no.1 i.e. Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business Studies (hereafter referred to as the College), has adjudicated upon the show cause notice and given its rec...
Tag this Judgment!Jagran Prakashan Limited and Another Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
1. The petition impugns the order dated 29th September, 2015 of the respondent Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India of rejection of the application of the petitioner no.1 Company under Section 314(1B) of the Companies Act, 1956 (the 1956 Act) seeking approval of appointment of the petitioner no.2 Shri Tarun Gupta, a relative of the Director of the petitioner no.1 Company, as an Executive President (Commercial) of the petitioner no.1 Company at an annual remuneration of Rs.77,41,539/- for a period of five years with effect from 1st October, 2013 with annual increment of Rs.50,000/- per month. 2. The petitioners had earlier filed W.P.(C) No.7873/2014 impugning the earlier rejection dated 5th August, 2014 of the said application and which writ petition, finding that the order dated 5th August, 2014 had been passed without hearing the petitioners, was allowed vide order dated 12th March, 2015 with a direction to the respondent to decide the application afresh after taking int...
Tag this Judgment!Karun Raj Narang, Ex. Director, M/s. Eastern Medikit Ltd. and Others V ...
Court: Delhi
Gita Mittal, J. (Oral) 1. The appellants have challenged the order dated 15th May, 2015 passed in Crl.O (CO) 9/2015 (page-34). By this order, the learned Company Judge took cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 454 (5) and (5A) of the Companies Act, 1956 and summoned the appellants for commission of the alleged offence. Inasmuch the impugned order has been challenged by all the appellants on identical grounds and also the appeals arise from same facts, we have taken up these appeals for consideration together and propose to dispose of all of them by this common order. 2. An order dated 10th May, 2013 was passed in CP No.516/2012 under Section 433 of the Companies Act, whereby the learned Single Judge appointed an official liquidator with regard to the affairs of the Eastern Medikit Ltd. The appellants before us were all ex-directors in this company. Pursuant to the order of appointment in these proceedings, the official liquidator took over the premises of the company and s...
Tag this Judgment!