Delhi Court December 2015 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.
RKDF Medical College Hospital and Research Centre and Another Vs. Unio ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-29-2015
WP(C) 9663/2015 and CM No. 23066/2015 (Stay) PREFATORY FACTS 1. This is a writ petition whereby, the petitioners, seek a direction qua the respondents to renew permission for admission to the second batch for MBBS Course (comprising of 150 students), for the academic year 2015-2016. 1.1 In respect of the above, the impediment in the way of the petitioners, is the final order of the first respondent i.e. Union of India (hereafter referred to as the Central Government), dated 28.09.2015. The Central Government, in reaching its conclusion (which is, that it would not renew permission for admission to second batch for MBBS course, with respect to the academic year 2015-2016), has taken into account the recommendation of respondent no.2 i.e. the Medical Council of India (in short the MCI), as also, the recommendations of its own "Hearing Committee" (in short the Committee). It is, therefore, pertinent to note that the MCI's recommendations to the Central Government are contained in its comm...
CBI Vs. R.K. Yadav and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
1. The present petitions raise a common issue of law and are being disposed of by this common order. By way of the present writ petitions, the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the CBI') assails the orders passed by Special Judge, CBI dated 18.02.2013 and 07.05.2014 whereby the CBI was directed to conduct investigation and proceed with the complaint of the respondents herein. 2. The facts in brief pertaining to W.P.(CRL.) No. 903/2013 are as follows:- A. Mr. R.K. Yadav (the respondent in the instant petition) is the former General Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat (RAW) Employees Association (Regd.), an association of RAW employees. On 28.02.1996, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code') with a prayer to initiate action against Mr. A.K. Verma and his family members for misappropriation of secret funds and possessing assets disproportionate to his known source of income. B...
Mukul Mishra Vs. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:- a) issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/direction/orders and further order/orders to the effect that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall permit the petitioner to work on the present post of Advisor (Law) at office of respondent No.2 on present terms and conditions and salary until the respondent No.3 takes a final view on its notification No.F-19(01)2014/S-IV/223-224 dated 16.02.2015. Secondly he may kindly be allowed to work on the present post till continuation of the scheme, whichever lasts later. b) direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to take any action/shall withdraw any action already taken on the basis of interviews (personal interaction) dated 30.03.2015 until final view is taken by the respondent No.3 on its notification; c) direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take action consistent to final view taken by respondent No.3 regarding notification dated 16.02.2015; d) Any other ...
Col. K.P. Kumar and Others Vs. UOI and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The writ petitioners in these batch of cases allege discrimination in matters of promotion and question a bar contained in the service conditions applicable to them; they are working as permanently seconded(in effect, permanently absorbed) officers in the Directorate General of Quality Assurance (hereafter "DGQA"). They were previously working as officers in the Indian Army. The bar which they are aggrieved by prohibits consideration of their cases for promotion, irrespective of their work and performance in the DGQA- it is to the effect that those permanently superseded in the Indian Army would not be considered for promotion. The petitioners complain that this is discriminatory, because their colleagues (some permanently seconded from the armed forces like them, but not superseded; and other technical personnel, who never served in the armed forces) are considered for promotion purely on the basis of their merit, ability and functioning within the DGQA rather ...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Jagdish Prashad
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
1. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the award dated 30th April, 2013 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-X, KKD, Delhi in DID No.475/09 whereby the respondent/workman was granted the relief of back wages w.e.f. the date of termination of service, i.e., 6th December, 2006 till the date of his superannuation along with continuity of service and consequential benefits. 2. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as workman') was working as a conductor in Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as corporation'). He was terminated on 6th December, 2006 on the allegations that on 20th June, 1994 when he was on duty on bus No.9792, Ajmeri Gate-Sohna Route, his bus was checked by the checking staff. He had issued tickets of less denomination to two passengers after having accepted full fare from them. On 10th July, 1994, the workman was served with the charge sheet dated 7th July, 1994 to which he submitted his reply. Af...
Union of India and Another Vs. M/s. Mahalaxmi Saw Mills P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. 1. This intra court appeal impugns the judgment dated 10th June, 2005 of the learned Single Judge of this Court allowing W.P.(C) No.2546/2003 filed by the respondent M/s Mahalaxmi Saw Mills Pvt. Ltd. by quashing the communications dated 5th September, 2001 and 26th March, 2003 of the appellants Land and Building Officer (LandDO) and issuing a mandamus directing the appellants to mutate the leasehold rights in the land underneath property No.3/13, Industrial Area, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi from the name of Mahalaxmi Saw Mills, a partnership firm to the name of the respondent, a private limited company, without treating the same as a sale of the property. 2. The appeal, vide order dated 9th January, 2007, was admitted for hearing and the statement of the counsel for the respondent that he would not press for compliance of the direction / writ issued by the leaned Single Judge was recorded. The appeal, when came up for hearing on 28th January, 2010 was dismissed for no...
Deepak Nijhawan and Another Vs. RN Abrol
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2012 passed by the Fist Appellate Court, namely, the learned ADJ, Central-17, Delhi in RCA No.17/2011 preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs. The Fist Appellate Court dismissed the said first appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2011 passed by the Trial Court, namely, Civil Judge, Central-5, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Suit No.472/2010. The Trial Court had similarly dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for possession, recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits and damages. 2. The case of the plaintiffs/appellants was that they had initially let out the suit property bearing no.1337, Ground Floor, Sector-D, Pocket-1, DDA Flats, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi to the respondent/defendant on 18.06.1988 on an initial rent of Rs.2,500/- excluding water, electricity and other charges. The said lease was for a period of three years w.e.f. 19.06.1988. Consequently, the said initial lease expired on...
Linda Eastwood Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
1. Present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner X(assumed name). It is contested by the respondents. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Undeniably, Xis employed with M/S. Bridge and Roof Co.(India) Ltd. under the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises and is working in the said institution for the last about 33 years. She lodged a complaint of continued sexual harassment for two years as per the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (in short the Act') and filed a complaint before Internal Complaint Committee under Section 4 of the Act (in short ICC / respondent No.2'). 3. By an Office Order dated 01.09.2011, ICC comprising Mrs.J.Raha (Chairperson), Mrs.L.Alen, Mrs.Janet Anthony, Mrs.Pranati Mondal, and Mrs.Amrita Sen as its members was constituted. By ...
Arkesh Jain and Others Vs. Mohd. Ishrar and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
MAC.APP. No.339/2006 1. Our Constitution guarantees every citizen the fundamental right to equality before law. 2. Article 14 of the Constitution of India provides:- The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.' 3. Article 15(1) of our Constitution further provides:- The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place or birth or any of them.' 4. A common saying that: A son is a son until he gets a wife. A daughter is a daughter throughout her life.' has been quoted by the Supreme Court in the report Savita Samvedi (Ms) and Anr. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (1996) 2 SCC 380 while striking down Railway Board Circular dated 11.08.1992 being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. The claim petition bearing Suit No.588/03/00 was filed by the parents and younger brother of the deceased Komal Jain seeking compensation for her death ...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Shish Pal Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
I.S. Mehta, J. 1. The present petitioner, i.e., Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred as the petitioner-management') has preferred the present Writ Petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 07.02.2003 and 03.06.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the learned Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator') in O.P. No. 313/94 under Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. The brief facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner-management are that the respondent-workman, i.e., Shri Shish Pal was appointed as retainer crew conductor vide letter No. PLD (2)/78/8271 dated 07.07.1978. On 08.01.1993 while the respondent-workman was on official duty on bus No. 9649 on route No 305, he was checked by the checking staff of the petitioner-management at Fatehpuri'and it was found that: (i) he received full fare from passengers but is...