Delhi Court July 2016 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2016 Page 6 of about 67 results (0.020 seconds)Shiv Chand Rao Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral) CM No.23839/2016 Allowed. W.P.(C) No.5780/2016 1. Counsel as above appear for the respondents and state that counter affidavits need not be filed because all relevant documents have been filed by the writ petitioner. 2. Thus, the present writ petition is being disposed of noting the dates given by the petitioner of having joined service and when he completed 12 years and 24 years service respectively. We take on record the statement made by learned counsel for the respondents that these dates would be subject to verification by the respondents, to which learned counsel for the petitioner agrees. 3. The issue arising in the captioned writ petition concerns implementation of the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP) as per which, those who had rendered twelve years service and had earned no promotion, subject to fitness, would be entitled to the first financial upgradation and upon completion of twenty four years service, if no second promotion was earned, ...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Raghavan Vs. State of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
G.S. Sistani, J. 1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for production of his minor daughter Nethra who has been illegally and unlawfully removed from the custody of the petitioner from the United Kingdom(UK). 2. Petitioner is the father and the natural guardian of Nethra who is six years of age. As per the petition, the petitioner is a UK citizen and holds a British Passport. The petitioner came to UK in the year 2003 as a student and since 2005 he has been working in UK Petitioner married respondent no.2 on 30.11.2006 through a registered marriage and a formal wedding ceremony took place on 22.01.2007. Petitioner and respondent no.2 thereafter travelled to UK on 30.01.2007 with the intention to live in the UK permanently. Respondent no.2 was granted permanent residency and indefinite leave to remain in UK on 05.05.2010. The petitioner claims that respondent no...
Tag this Judgment!T. Ramesh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Sunita Gupta, J. 1. The challenge in the aforesaid two appeals filed by the appellants is to the judgment dated 28.02.2014 and order on sentence dated 05.04.2014 in Sessions Case No.69/11 arising out of FIR No.273/2011 Police Station Saraswati Vihar, Delhi under Ss.452/392/394/397/34 IPC vide which the appellants were convicted for offences punishable under S.452/34 IPC and 394/397 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under S. 452/34 IPC with fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month; sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment under S. 394 IPC with fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under S. 397 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Both the appellants were granted benefit of S. 428 of Cr.PC. 2. A2 Radhika worked as a domestic maid in the house of PW2 Smt Veena Guglani a...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kapoor Vs. Ved Prakash Sehgal and Others
Court: Delhi
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for specific performance of a Receipt-cum-Agreement dated 26.7.2000 (hereinafter referred to as Agreement ).In the alternate, the plaintiff seeks recovery of damages to the tune of Rs.1.55 crores, the amount of sale consideration, which was fixed vide Agreement dated 26.7.2000. It may be noticed that prior to the filing of the suit, the seller, late Sh.K.C. Sehgal, died on 30.1.2002. Legal heirs of late Sh.K.C. Sehgal have been arrayed as defendants. 2. As per the plaint, the facts, which have led to the filing of the present suit, are that the defendants are the co-owners of the property bearing no.R-80, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi, built on a plot of land measuring 310 sq. yards. At the relevant time, the property was owned by late Sh.K.C. Sehgal and upon his death the property devolved upon his legal heirs. During his life time, on 26.7.2000 Sh.K.C. Sehgal entered into an Agreement with the plaintiff for sale of suit property, for which...
Tag this Judgment!Sharda Devi Sanskrit Vidyapeeth Vs. Director of Education and Another
Court: Delhi
Sanjiv Khanna, J. (Oral) C.M.No.12719/2016 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. C.M.No.12718/2016 Learned counsel for the non-applicants do not oppose the application for condonation of 596 days delay as review/modification application was pending before the learned single Judge. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly allowed for the reasons stated therein. LPA 229/2016 1. By the present Letters Patent Appeal, Sharda Devi Sanskrit Vidyapeeth impugns judgment and order dated 11th July, 2014 and 19th February, 2016, respectively. 2. Judgment dated 11th July, 2014 allows the writ petition filed by Ganesh Ram Bhatt with the direction that the appellant-school would pay the unpaid salary and allowances as admissible to him for the period to be reckoned from 15th May, 2011 onwards. 3. Order dated 19th February, 2016 dismisses C.M.No.18672/2014 filed by the appellant-school for review/modification of the judgment dated 11th July, 2014 for absence of any error ap...
Tag this Judgment!Azad Singh Solanki Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Delhi
1. The petition (i) impugns the communication dated 26th May, 2014 of the respondent Punjab National Bank (Bank) to the petitioner to the effect that upon the failure of the petitioner to pay balance 75% of the bid amount within the prescribed time, the amount deposited by the petitioner till then with the respondent Bank shall stand forfeited; and, (ii) seeks mandamus to the respondent Bank to refund the earnest amount of Rs. 40,20,000/- to the petitioner along with interest. 2. The petition came up before this Court first on 28th July, 2014 when the counsel for the respondent Bank appearing on advance notice was asked to obtain instructions whether the respondent Bank was agreeable to refund the amount forfeited. The counsel for the respondent Bank on 19th November, 2014 informed that the respondent Bank was not so agreeable. Notice of the petition was issued and pleadings have been completed. On 18th January, 2016 when the petition came up for hearing, attention of the senior counse...
Tag this Judgment!Common Cause, A Regd. Society Vs. Bahujan Samaj Party
Court: Delhi
1. The petition (a) impugns the order dated 11th October, 2010 of Election Commission of India (ECI) of dismissal as not maintainable of the application preferred by petitioner seeking freezing of the symbol Elephant as the reserved symbol of the respondent Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), a Recognised National Party within the meaning of Clauses 6 and 6A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968, (Symbols Order); and, (b) seeks a mandamus to the ECI to cancel or freeze the reserved election symbol Elephant of the respondent BSP. 2. Notice of the petition was issued and a reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent BSP and to which a rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. Vide order dated 16th July, 2012 ECI which was earlier impleaded as respondent No.1, was deleted from array of parties but its counsel requested to remain present. 3. When the matter was called on 25th February, 2016, the senior counsel for the respondent BSP stated that the order of ECI under...
Tag this Judgment!Hanuman Road Residents Welfare Association Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi a ...
Court: Delhi
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. 1. The controversy entailed in this petition can be gauged from the following order dated 2nd November, 2010 passed when the petition came up first before this Court: 1. The petitioner objects to the proposal of the respondent No.3 NDMC to set up its electric sub-station in a portion of the park in the locality. The counsel for the respondent No.3 NDMC appearing on advance notice states that the respondent No.3 NDMC is not the land owning agency of the area and the land belongs to Land and Development Office (LandDO) and the LandDO has handed over a portion of the park to the respondent No.3 NDMC on payment of consideration for setting up of the electric sub-station. It is stated that even though the alternative sites suggested by the petitioner prior to the filing of the petition did not belong to the respondent No.3 NDMC and belonged to the LandDO only but the same were nevertheless inspected but not found suitable. It is yet further informed that the park is c...
Tag this Judgment!Raghav Buildcon Private Limited and Another Vs. Union of India and Oth ...
Court: Delhi
1. W.P.(C) No.385/2016 (i) seeks mandamus to the respondent No.3 Punjab and Sind Bank to refund / revert the illegal, unreasonable and arbitrary debits made in the Term Loan Account bearing No.03881200055026 of the petitioner with the respondent No.3 Bank and to credit the same to Current Account bearing No.0388110043358 maintained by the petitioner with the Nehru Palace, New Delhi branch of the respondent No.3 Bank; (ii) seeks mandamus to the respondent No.3 Bank to close the term loan account aforesaid of the petitioner and to release all the securities mortgaged therein and as detailed in the petition; (iii) seeks a mandamus to the respondent No.1 Union of India (UOI) for conducting an enquiry in the matter and to pass appropriate direction / remedial measures in terms of Section 8 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 (Banking Acquisition Act); and, (iv) seeks mandamus to the respondent No.2 Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for conducting enquiry ...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Masaurhi Service Station Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. an ...
Court: Delhi
1. The petition (i) impugns the letter dated 24th February, 2015 of the respondent No.1 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) resiting the petitioner, a Retail Outlet (RO) dealer of the respondent No.1 BPCL from Shanti Path to Azadpur, Delhi; (ii) seeks to restrain the respondent No.1 BPCL from taking over physical possession of the petitioner s petrol pump at Shanti Path, Moti Bagh, New Delhi; and, (iii) seeks direction to the respondent No.1 BPCL to resume sales and supplies and not to obstruct or interfere in the operation by the petitioner of the Shanti Path RO. 2. It is the case in the petition: (i) that the respondent No.1 BPCL is a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) and respondent No.2 Union of India through Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MoPNG) is the parent Ministry of the respondent No.1 BPCL; (ii) that the petitioner was originally operating a RO dealership in Bihar; (iii) that in the year 1999, the petitioner was resited from Bihar to Azadpur, Delhi and operated the...
Tag this Judgment!