Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: pepsu court of wards act 2008 bk Year: 2019 Page 5 of about 70 results (0.057 seconds)

Jan 31 2019 (HC)

Nandan Singh Bisht vs.union of India and Ors

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-31-2019

..... of the level of joint secretary and above and officers appointed by the central government corporations established by or under the central act, government companies, societies etc. the court held as under: can it be said that the classification is based on intelligible differentia when one set of bureaucrats of joint ..... (2) is violative of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. in union of india v. dinesh engineering corporation (supra) the supreme court held that courts are normally not equipped to question the correctness of a policy decision when it is based on the views of experts and knowledgeable persons.29 ..... who had obtained an interim order prior to retirement. 34.5 in view of the subsequent decision, the nigam by a resolution dated 13th april, 2008 resolved to enhance the age of superannuation of employees, irrespective of the source of entry, to 60 years. however, the state government provided a ..... union of india (1999) 4 scc756and union of india v. dineshan k.k. (2008) 1 scc586 27. having examined the said decisions, it appears to the court that it is not entirely correct that the supreme court has adopted a hands-off approach in relation to questions concerning differential treatment to those working ..... c) 1951/2012 and batch matters page 43 of 70 recommendations dated 13th april, 2008 of the nigam. 34.6 this led to a further round of litigation and the division bench of the allahabad high court, lucknow bench by its common judgment dated 29th july, 2010 declared the 2005 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 2019 (HC)

Jai Bhagwan vs.union of India and Ors

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-31-2019

..... of the level of joint secretary and above and officers appointed by the central government corporations established by or under the central act, government companies, societies etc. the court held as under: can it be said that the classification is based on intelligible differentia when one set of bureaucrats of joint ..... (2) is violative of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. in union of india v. dinesh engineering corporation (supra) the supreme court held that courts are normally not equipped to question the correctness of a policy decision when it is based on the views of experts and knowledgeable persons.29 ..... who had obtained an interim order prior to retirement. 34.5 in view of the subsequent decision, the nigam by a resolution dated 13th april, 2008 resolved to enhance the age of superannuation of employees, irrespective of the source of entry, to 60 years. however, the state government provided a ..... union of india (1999) 4 scc756and union of india v. dineshan k.k. (2008) 1 scc586 27. having examined the said decisions, it appears to the court that it is not entirely correct that the supreme court has adopted a hands-off approach in relation to questions concerning differential treatment to those working ..... c) 1951/2012 and batch matters page 43 of 70 recommendations dated 13th april, 2008 of the nigam. 34.6 this led to a further round of litigation and the division bench of the allahabad high court, lucknow bench by its common judgment dated 29th july, 2010 declared the 2005 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 2019 (HC)

N. Ramakutty vs.union of India and Ors

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-31-2019

..... of the level of joint secretary and above and officers appointed by the central government corporations established by or under the central act, government companies, societies etc. the court held as under: can it be said that the classification is based on intelligible differentia when one set of bureaucrats of joint ..... (2) is violative of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. in union of india v. dinesh engineering corporation (supra) the supreme court held that courts are normally not equipped to question the correctness of a policy decision when it is based on the views of experts and knowledgeable persons.29 ..... who had obtained an interim order prior to retirement. 34.5 in view of the subsequent decision, the nigam by a resolution dated 13th april, 2008 resolved to enhance the age of superannuation of employees, irrespective of the source of entry, to 60 years. however, the state government provided a ..... union of india (1999) 4 scc756and union of india v. dineshan k.k. (2008) 1 scc586 27. having examined the said decisions, it appears to the court that it is not entirely correct that the supreme court has adopted a hands-off approach in relation to questions concerning differential treatment to those working ..... c) 1951/2012 and batch matters page 43 of 70 recommendations dated 13th april, 2008 of the nigam. 34.6 this led to a further round of litigation and the division bench of the allahabad high court, lucknow bench by its common judgment dated 29th july, 2010 declared the 2005 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 2019 (HC)

Tilak Ram vs.union of India and Ors

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-31-2019

..... of the level of joint secretary and above and officers appointed by the central government corporations established by or under the central act, government companies, societies etc. the court held as under: can it be said that the classification is based on intelligible differentia when one set of bureaucrats of joint ..... (2) is violative of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. in union of india v. dinesh engineering corporation (supra) the supreme court held that courts are normally not equipped to question the correctness of a policy decision when it is based on the views of experts and knowledgeable persons.29 ..... who had obtained an interim order prior to retirement. 34.5 in view of the subsequent decision, the nigam by a resolution dated 13th april, 2008 resolved to enhance the age of superannuation of employees, irrespective of the source of entry, to 60 years. however, the state government provided a ..... union of india (1999) 4 scc756and union of india v. dineshan k.k. (2008) 1 scc586 27. having examined the said decisions, it appears to the court that it is not entirely correct that the supreme court has adopted a hands-off approach in relation to questions concerning differential treatment to those working ..... c) 1951/2012 and batch matters page 43 of 70 recommendations dated 13th april, 2008 of the nigam. 34.6 this led to a further round of litigation and the division bench of the allahabad high court, lucknow bench by its common judgment dated 29th july, 2010 declared the 2005 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 2019 (HC)

B L Naik vs.union of India and Ors

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-31-2019

..... of the level of joint secretary and above and officers appointed by the central government corporations established by or under the central act, government companies, societies etc. the court held as under: can it be said that the classification is based on intelligible differentia when one set of bureaucrats of joint ..... (2) is violative of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. in union of india v. dinesh engineering corporation (supra) the supreme court held that courts are normally not equipped to question the correctness of a policy decision when it is based on the views of experts and knowledgeable persons.29 ..... who had obtained an interim order prior to retirement. 34.5 in view of the subsequent decision, the nigam by a resolution dated 13th april, 2008 resolved to enhance the age of superannuation of employees, irrespective of the source of entry, to 60 years. however, the state government provided a ..... union of india (1999) 4 scc756and union of india v. dineshan k.k. (2008) 1 scc586 27. having examined the said decisions, it appears to the court that it is not entirely correct that the supreme court has adopted a hands-off approach in relation to questions concerning differential treatment to those working ..... c) 1951/2012 and batch matters page 43 of 70 recommendations dated 13th april, 2008 of the nigam. 34.6 this led to a further round of litigation and the division bench of the allahabad high court, lucknow bench by its common judgment dated 29th july, 2010 declared the 2005 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 15 2019 (HC)

Airport Authority of India vs.mumbai International Airport Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-15-2019

..... 2006 making clause 20.3.2 of the omda applicable thereto.45. in associate builders v. dda, (2015) 3 scc49 the supreme court has cautioned the court exercising power under section 34 of the act in the following words: omp (comm.) no.32/2019 page 21 42.3. (c) equally, the third subhead of patent illegality ..... as schedule 1, the disputed land was shown as a carved out assets?. he submits that the respondent did not raise any objection to the same till 2008. the contention of the respondent, in his submission, therefore, is an afterthought and is liable to be rejected.34. i am again unable to accept ..... assets? in the lease deed.8. in the 7th meeting of the omda implementation oversight committee (hereinafter referred to as the oioc?) held on 20.02.2008, the petitioner stated that the said issue was being examined and will be decided shortly.9. in a meeting chaired by the minister of civil aviation (moca ..... ) on 16.04.2008, the following decision was arrived at: 2. aai matters: (a) carved out assets: pursuant to the omda provisions, mial had requested aai for transfer of ..... made to the meeting under the chairmanship of hon'ble minister of civil aviation on 16.04.2008, the relevant portion of the minutes have been quoted supra. similarly, the letters of the claimant dated 05.09.2008, 24.11.2009 and the minutes of the meeting dated 20.09.2009 make the position crystal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 08 2019 (HC)

Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs.1mg Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jul-08-2019

..... once it receives actual knowledge that the content is infringing or is in violation of law. such actual knowledge has to be in the form of a court order under section 79 of the it act, as per the dictum of the cs (os) 410/2018, 453/2018, 480/2018, 531/2018, 550/2018, 75/2019 & 91/2019 page 33 of 225 supreme ..... justify the opposition of the trademark owner to a further marketing of the products in question, as per paragraph 2 of the same disposition. the case-law of the community courts (court of justice eu, sentence 23.4.2009, case c-59/08) confirmed that the existence of a selective distribution network can be re-included among the ?legitimate reasons? standing against ..... regulated after enormous deliberation and discussions took place, including consideration by a parliamentary committee. whenever any trade is regulated, the right to carry on business cannot be invoked. the supreme court has held that no infraction of fundamental rights could be claimed by: ? regulation of publishing of government textbooks in ram jawaya kapur (supra); ? regulating minimum wages in u. unichoyi & ors ..... applicable laws. since direct selling guidelines are applicable law, they will have to be accepted and implemented. reliance is placed on ndmc v. tanvi trading and credit pvt. ltd. 152 (2008) dlt117(sc) (hereinafter, ?ndmc v. tanvi trading ).94. it is submitted that the prayer being sought that direct selling guidelines ought to be declared not to be binding law, is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 2019 (HC)

Vesta Holding Private Limited & Anr vs.akm Enterprises Private Limite ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Dec-03-2019

..... adjustment of earnest money, interest free security deposit, discount for fit out period shall be paid on the terms as follows: a. after june 15, 2008 upto 15 (fifteen) months from the date of this mou100 (one hundred percent) of the purchase consideration for the unleased area shall be paid to ..... any efforts to find the tenants and would start getting a return on its investment immediately; and, (xviii) akm however vide notice dated 21st august, 2008 sought to unilaterally revoke the mou and forfeit the amount of rs.25 crores received from vesta. hence cs(os) no.1020/2009 was filed, seeking ..... the five brands/anchor tenants named in the mou and as such was not in a position to handover the symbolic possession to vesta by 1st february, 2008; (xi) in view of the same, various tenants / prospective tenants in the mall were also cancelling or threatening to cancel the lease / mous signed ..... terms of the mou, the next installment of purchase consideration of rs.112.04 crores was to be paid by vesta to akm by 1st february, 2008 and was related to the progression of the construction of retail and entertainment areas, including areas leased out to the five brands viz. home centre, debenhams ..... delhi development authority (2015) 4 scc136set aside a judgment of the division bench of this court allowing appeal (by relying on section 74 of the contract act) against the judgment of the single judge of this court ordering refund of earnest money on the ground that the seller had not suffered any loss. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 2019 (HC)

Akm Enterprises Private Ltd vs.vesta Holding Private Ltd & Anr

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Dec-03-2019

..... adjustment of earnest money, interest free security deposit, discount for fit out period shall be paid on the terms as follows: a. after june 15, 2008 upto 15 (fifteen) months from the date of this mou100 (one hundred percent) of the purchase consideration for the unleased area shall be paid to ..... any efforts to find the tenants and would start getting a return on its investment immediately; and, (xviii) akm however vide notice dated 21st august, 2008 sought to unilaterally revoke the mou and forfeit the amount of rs.25 crores received from vesta. hence cs(os) no.1020/2009 was filed, seeking ..... the five brands/anchor tenants named in the mou and as such was not in a position to handover the symbolic possession to vesta by 1st february, 2008; (xi) in view of the same, various tenants / prospective tenants in the mall were also cancelling or threatening to cancel the lease / mous signed ..... terms of the mou, the next installment of purchase consideration of rs.112.04 crores was to be paid by vesta to akm by 1st february, 2008 and was related to the progression of the construction of retail and entertainment areas, including areas leased out to the five brands viz. home centre, debenhams ..... delhi development authority (2015) 4 scc136set aside a judgment of the division bench of this court allowing appeal (by relying on section 74 of the contract act) against the judgment of the single judge of this court ordering refund of earnest money on the ground that the seller had not suffered any loss. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 2019 (HC)

M/S Matrix Infosoft Pvt Ltd vs.m/s Planman Tehnologies (India) Pvt Lt ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-16-2019

..... a petition fao (os) 07/2019 page 4 of 16 under section 11 of the act before this court. the learned arbitrator rendered the impugned award.5. five submissions were made by the learned counsel for the appellant before the learned single judge, which ..... the subject property. in support of this contention, reliance was placed on the communications dated:11. 12.2007, 22.2.2008, 27.2.2008, 3.3.2008, 4.3.2008, 5.3.2008 and 6.3.2008. (iii) thirdly, the stand taken by the respondent that the petitioner s communication dated 23.11.2007 was with a ..... 23.11.2007 and communication exchanged thereafter between the parties 11.12.2007, 22.2.2008, 26.2.2008, 27.2.2008, 3.3.2008, two letters of even date, i.e., 3.3.2008, 4.3.2008, 5.3.2008 and 6.3.2008. communication dated i.e. 23.1 based on the aforesaid communications, it was sought ..... respondent through a notice sought refund of `28 lakhs given at the time of execution of the mou. the appellant gave a notice dated march 31, 2008. vide this notice, the appellant demanded under various heads a sum of `9,23,70,854/- from the respondent. the matter was referred to arbitration in ..... with you . subsequently, correspondences were exchanged between the parties.4. it is the case of the appellant that for the first time, on march 07, 2008, the respondent conveyed to appellant that it wished to discontinue the deal for the reason that it had found an alternate premise. the respondent appears to have .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //