Delhi Court November 2012 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.
Bajaj Electricals Limited Vs. Rana Sugars Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Decision:26. 11.2012 CS(OS) 1259/2009 BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LIMITED Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. Anil K. Kher, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rishi Manchanda and Mr. Ankur Bansal, Advocates versus RANA SUGARS LIMITED Through: ..... Defendant Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(ORAL) IA No.13207/2010 (under Order 37 rule 3(5) CPC by defendant for leave to defend) 1. This is a suit filed under Order XXXVII Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of Rs.60,24,345/-. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant placed an order with it for supply of certain equipment and appliances and paid 10% advance to it at New Delhi. The plaintiff claimed to have supplied material worth Rs.45,29,582.30 to the defendant between 8.2.2007 to 30.4.2007 vide 17 invoices mentioned in para 5 of the plaint. The defendant issued C-Form for the material purchased by it, but has not paid the amount of the invoices. The plaintif...
Sheela Joshi and ors. Vs. Air India (Formly Known as National Aviation ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P (C) No. 6465/2012 Judgment reserved on:20. 11.2012 Judgment delivered on:26. 11.2012 SHEELA JOSHI & ORS. Through: Mr.Arvind Advocate. ..... Petitioners Kumar Sharma, Versus AIR INDIA (FORMLY KNOWN AS NATIONAL AVIATION COMPNAY OF INDIA LTD.(NACIL) THR. GENERAL MANAGER CS (IN-CHARGE) ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Lalit Bhasin, Mrs.Ratna D. Dhingra, Ms.Bhavna Dhami and Ms.Sneha Balakrishnan, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.CM No. 17159/2012 (for stay) in W.P.(C) 6465/2012 1. Vide the instant application, the applicants/petitioners are seeking ad-interim stay against the Order not IS/20/504 dated 12.09.2012 passed by the respondent.2. The applicants/petitioners are working as Cabin Crew with the respondent Organization from last so many years and, in fact, some of the petitioners have put in 28-30 years of service and are at the verge of retirement.3. Memorandum of Settlement(MOS) in Form-H was entered into b...
Aishverya Ranjan Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
$~ 3, 8, 11-15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: November 22, 2012 Judgment Pronounced on: November 26, 2012 + W.P.(C) 6100/2012 & CM No.16465/2012 MS. NISHA Represented by: Advocates. ..... Petitioner Mr.S.S.Pandey, and Mr.H.S.Tewari, versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Ankur Chibber, Mr.Anil Gautam, Mr.Aditya Malhotra and Mr.MP Singh, Advocates for UOI. Mr.Amitesh Kumar, Advocate for AICTE. AND W.P.(C) 6185/2012 & CM No.16618/2012 MS. SONAM DUBEY Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.K.Ramesh, Advocate with Ms. R.Archana, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Ankur Chibber, Mr.Anil Gautam, Mr.Aditya Malhotra and Mr.MP Singh, Advocates for UOI. AND W.P.(C) 6186/2012 & CM No.16620/2012 MS. VANDANA Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.K.Ramesh, Advocate with Ms.R.Archana, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Ankur Chibber, Mr.Aditya Malhotra and M...
DIn Dayal Yadav Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
$~S-8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: November 26, 2012 + W.P.(C) 511/2000 DIN DAYAL YADAV Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.H.S.Dahiya, Advocate. versus UOI & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HONBLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. After some arguments learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions from the petitioner states that he does not intend to press the writ petition on merits but would desire directions be issued to the competent authority of CISF to decide the petitioners claim seeking compassionate allowance; which we note would be an amount not exceeding 2/3rd of the compensation pension.2. We note Rule 39 of the CCS Pension Rules deals with the subject of compensation pension and Rule 41 deals with the subject of compassionate allowance. We further note that compensation pension has no concern with pensionable service and is payable on dis...
Union of India and ors Vs. Braj Mohan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:26. h November, 2012 % + LPA 765/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ORS Through: ..... Appellants Mr. R.V. Sinha & Mr. R.N. Sinha, Advs. versus BRAJ MOHAN Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Ravi Prakash & Mr. Avni Singh, Advs. CORAM :HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW D. MURUGESAN, CHIEF JUSTICE. Caveat No.1180/2012 1. The counsel for the caveator / respondent has appeared, the caveat stands discharged. LPA 765/2012 2. This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 15th October, 2012 of the learned Single Judge, allowing W.P.(C) No.559/2012 preferred by the respondent by directing the appellants to again put up the recommendation made by the Selection Committee for appointment of the respondent as Member (Technical) of the Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT), before the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) and directing the ACC to consider the said recommendation, ignoring the Office Memorandum dated 8th May, 1992. W...
Krishan Chander Gopal Singh and anr. Vs. P.O., Labour Court No. 1 Delh ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
$~R52 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1672/1998 Decided on:26. h November, 2012 KRISHAN CHANDER GOPAL SINGH & ANR. Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Vikram Saini, Adv. versus P.O., LABOUR COURT NO. 1 DELHI & ANR. Through ..... Respondent Mr. KamalMehta, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J (ORAL) 1. By the present petition the Petitioners impugne the award dated 7th January, 1998 whereby despite their termination being held to be illegal and unjustified, the learned Trial Court did not direct reinstatement with back wages and only held that the Petitioners were entitled to a compensation from the Respondent considering their services, wages and their intention not to join the services offered by the management vide Ex.WW1/X-1.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that having held that the termination was illegal and unjustified the only relief the learned Trial Court could have granted to the Petitioners was of reinstatement with b...
Bhuwan Nath Goswami Vs. Gulam Mohd. Sadiq and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:26. h November, 2012 + MAC. APP. 945/2011 BHUWAN NATH GOSWAMI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. with Ms. Suman N. Rawat, Adv. versus GULAM MOHD. SADIQ & ORS. ...... Respondents Through Mr. D.K. Sharma, Adv. for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `26,85,512/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour of the Appellant Bhuwan Nath Goswami for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 26.10.2004.2. The finding on negligence is not disputed by the driver, owner and the Insurer, thus, the same has attained finality.3. In the accident, apart from injuries on other parts of the body, the Appellant suffered head injury. The Appellant was issued a temporary Disability Certificate dated 04.01.2006 Ex. P-25 declaring him to be disabled to the extent of 90%. Subsequently,...
Shri Sanjeev SarIn Vs. Smt. Rita Wadhwa and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Decision:26. 11.2012 CS(OS) 140/2008 SHRI SANJEEV SARIN Through : ..... Plaintiff Mr Yakesh Anand, Adv. versus SMT. RITA WADHWA & ANR Through : ..... Defendants Mr. S.K.Gandhi, Adv. for D-1 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(ORAL) IAs 1008/2008(O.39 R.10 CPC) & 16647/2011(O.39 R.10 CPC) 1. There is dispute between the parties with respect to the ownership of the property not B-1/23, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. The abovereferred property admittedly was owned by Smt. Madhurekha Sarin, the mother of the parties to the suit. The case of the plaintiff and defendant No.2 is that Smt. Madhurekha Sarin died intestate and accordingly the parties are entitled to one-third share each in the aforesaid property. The case of defendant No.1, on the other hand, is that vide Will dated 1st March, 1999, the aforesaid property along with other assets was bequeathed solely to her by Smt. Madhurekha Sarin.2. In IA No. 1008/2008, the ...
Govind Singh Vs. Director General, Border Force and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: November 26, 2012 + W.P.(C) 4433/2012 GOVIND SINGH ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Ashok Kumar, Advocate with Mr.Rohit Kumar, Advocate. versus DIRECTOR GENERAL, BORDER FORCE AND ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Himanshu Bajaj, Advocate with and Mr.Asit Tiwari, Advocate with Mr.Bhupender Sharma, Parvi Officer, BSF. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner had made a limited prayer that period interregnum September 3, 2010 when the petitioner was dismissed from service till June 22, 2011 when dismissal was set aside and the petitioner was reinstated in service by the Director General, BSF may be treated as spent on duty limited for the purposes of pensionary benefits.2. In view of the limited request made, as recorded in the order dated July 26, 2012, we had deferred hearing requesting Director General, BSF ...
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh Rani and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:26. h November, 2012 + MAC.APP. 248/2010 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ....... Appellant Through: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Adv. versus KAMLESH RANI & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. with Ms. Suman N. Rawat, Adv. for R-7. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. The present Appeal is dismissed in terms of the judgment passed today in MAC.APP.246/2010 titled NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. ROSHINI DEVI & ORS.2. For detailed order, please see the above mentioned judgment. (G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE NOVEMBER 26 2012 vk...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »