Delhi Court August 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.
Jitender Yadav Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-2015
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the notice dated September 19, 2013, whereby the respondents 1 and 2 had prescribed minimum qualifying marks for Interview for Unreserved, Other Backward Classes and Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes category candidates as 50%, 45% and 40% respectively and final result dated November 06, 2013, whereby the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have been appointed as Staff Car Driver (Ordinary Grade) against OBCvacancy and Unreservedvacancy. 2. An advertisement was issued by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for making appointment to various posts including three posts of Staff Car Driver (Ordinary Grade) in pay band of Rs. 5200-20,200 (PB-I) + Grade Pay of Rs. 2400, the break up being SC-1, OBC-1 and UR-1. 3. Mr.Anil Singal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has challenged the impugned notice/order primarily on two grounds, the first one being, clause (6) of the advertisement, which relates to scheme of examination, contem...
Jhang Biradari Housing Residents Society Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sachdeva a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-2015
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The appellant instituted a suit praying for a declaration to be granted that it is the owner of property measuring 31 bigha comprised in Khasra No.206/2, 208/2, 209, 210/2 and 211/2 Basai Darapur, Rohtak Road, New Delhi. 2. It was pleaded in the plaint that the appellant is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and was initially formed by the name Jhang Biradari Association, with the object of re-settling people who had migrated to India from Jhang in Pakistan after partition. That Late Sh.Amir Chand and Brij Lal were the pioneers to form the Jhang Biradari Association. As per policy of the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India, evacuee properties were auctioned and one such evacuee property auctioned was 61 bigha and 6 biswa land comprised in Khasra No.206, 207, 208, 209, 210 and 211 in the revenue estate of Basai Darapur Delhi. That the Jhang Biradari Association took a decision to bid for the said evacuee property put up for auc...
Harvinder Pal Singh and Others Vs. S.K. Mukherjee and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-2015
Oral: 1. Two suits are being disposed of by the present judgment, being CS(OS) No. 572/2006 and CS(OS) No. 380/2009. The 2006 suit is a suit for CS(OS) No. 572/2006 and specific performance. The suit of 2009 is a counter suit by the proposed sellers seeking back possession of the property which was agreed to be sold in terms of the Agreement to Sell dated 21.10.2004. It is conceded before me on behalf of the plaintiffs/proposed sellers in the 2009 suit namely Sh. S.K. Mukherjee and Smt. Neelam Mukherjee that if the 2006 suit is decreed, then automatically the 2009 suit would stand dismissed. The proposed purchasers under the Agreement to Sell dated 21.10.2004 are Sh. Harvinder Pal Singh Dua and Smt. Harjinder Kaur, and who are the plaintiffs in CS(OS) No. 570/2006. In this suit the defendants are Sh. S.K. Mukherjee and Smt. Neelam Mukherjee, who are proposed sellers under the Agreement to Sell dated 21.10.2004, and they are the plaintiffs in CS(OS) No. 380/2009. The Agreement to Sell i...
Challenger Computers. Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Trade and Ta ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-2015
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. The issue 1. The common questions of law that arise for consideration in this batch of appeals, as framed by the Court by its order dated 9th February, 2015 read as under: (i) Whether the Appellate Tribunal-VAT was right in holding that the appellants were required to reverse input tax credits claimed on purchases made by them, in the course of their activities as dealers, on account of credit notes issued by selling dealers, despite the selling dealers having confirmed that they have not reduced their output tax liability. (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that the returns filed by the appellants were false, misleading or deceptive, attracting penalty U/S 86(10) of the Act. ? Background 2. The Appellants are all registered dealers under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (DVAT Act). All of them faced demands issued by the Value Added Tax Officer (VATO) for failure to reverse the input tax credit (ITC) availed of by them as p...
Jamia Hamdard (Deemed University) and Another Vs. Union of India and A ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2015
1. The petitioner No.2 Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences and Research established by the petitioner No.1 Jamia Hamdard (deemed University), having been granted permission in the academic year 2012-13 to establish a medical college with an annual intake of 100 students to the MBBS course and which permission was renewed for the academic years 2013-14 and 2014-15, is aggrieved from the refusal dated 7th June, 2015 of the respondent No.1 Union of India (UOI), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of the renewal of permission to admit the fourth batch of 100 students in the academic year 2015-16. 2. The petition came up before the Vacation Bench on 9th June, 2015 when the counsels for the UOI and the respondent No.2 Medical Council of India (MCI) appeared on advance notice. Arguments were heard on the application for interim relief claimed by the petitioners and vide order dated 12th June, 2015 though the interim order sought, of grant of permission to admit 100 students to the MBBS co...
Manushi Sangathan Vs. Govt. of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2015
1. This order will dispose of the notice issued to the Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation ( ˜North DMC') on 30th September 2014 by this Court, asking him to show cause why contempt proceedings ought not to be initiated against him. 2. The background to the order is that this Court has been monitoring the implementation of directions issued by the Full Bench of this Court in a judgment dated 10th February 2010 on the issue of plying of cycle rickshaws in Delhi. One of the issues that have been taken up for consideration is the provision of non-motorized vehicle (NMV) lanes on some of the main carriageways in Delhi. During the hearing on 28th September 2012, the Court's attention was drawn to the problem of congestion in the Chandni Chowk area. It was pointed out that no traffic management plan was operational in that area. The Court was informed by learned counsel for the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) that a meeting of the Delhi Police with the Petitioner, the re...
Lrs. Institute of Tuberculosis and Allied Diseases Vs. Shri Babu Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2015
Sunita Gupta, J. 1. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the award dated 20.08.2011 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Karkardooma, Delhi in ID No. 58/10 vide which the termination of the respondent herein was held to be illegal and he was held entitled for reinstatement of service and 50% of backwages alongwith compensation for a sum of Rs.10,000/-. The backwages were ordered to be paid within 30 days from the date of publication of the award failing which, workman was entitled for interest at simple rate of 6% from the date of award till realisation. 2. The respondent was engaged in the petitioner's institute as a kitchen staff on daily wages in the year 1986. Thereafter, he was appointed as a regular employee of the institute on 01.01.1987 as a kitchen staff. On 27.01.1994 the institute served the respondent with a memorandum/chargesheet for stealing certain food articles from the kitchen concealed in a bag which we...
Ashok alias Bobby and Others Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2015
R.K. Gauba, J. 1. The three appellants viz. Bhajan Singh @ Gulla (Accused No.1), Joginder Singh @ Jagga (Accused No.2) and Ashok @ Bobby (Accused No.3) stand convicted by judgment dated 19.08.2013 of the Additional Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and 201 read with Section 120-B IPC on the charge of having entered into criminal conspiracy and, pursuant to it, having committed the murder of child Wasim (son of PW-16 Mohd. Yunis), aged 8 years, and destroying the evidence thereafter on or about 11.7.2004 and 12.7.2004 in House No.B-7/144, Sector-17, Rohini. 2. By order dated 21.8.2013, the convicts were sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC and imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 201 read with Section 120-B IPC. The trial court directed that in case of default in the payment of fine...
S.K. Saini and Another Vs. C.B.I.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2015
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 14th February, 2005 and an order dated 15th February, 2005 passed by Special Judge, Delhi in CC No. 23/2001 whereby the appellants were convicted for offences under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the PC ?). They were sentenced to undergo :- i) Rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. ii) Rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. iii) Rigorous imprisonment...
Bal Bharti Public School Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2015
1. Vide present writ petition, the petitioner has sought the quashing of the order dated 02.08.2000, whereby he was directed to deposit the Provident Fund (PF) at the rate of 12% with effect from 22.09.1997 and of quashing of the notification dated 09.04.1997 or in alternative to declare that the notification dated 09.04.1997 cannot be invoked by the respondents after the amendment of 1988 Act by the Amending Act No.10 of 1998 which came into force with effect from 22.09.1997. 2. The case of the petitioner is that it is an unaided private school recognized by the Directorate of Education under the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the Rules framed there-under and it was set up in the year 1984. Although the EmployeesProvident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') came into force in the year 1952, the educational institutions, including university, colleges and schools were not covered under the Act. The Central Governmen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »