Delhi Court December 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.
Mira Hemrajani Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO 271/2012 & CM No. 12769/2012 % Date of Decision:06. 12.2012 MIRA HEMRAJANI ..... Appellant Through: Mr Arvind Kumar Gupta along with Mr Sandeep Gupta & Mr Nitin Sharma, Advs. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL VEENA BIRBAL, J.(ORAL) * 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment dated 14.05.2012 by which the probate petition of the appellant has been dismissed.2. It is stated that the appellant is wife of late Shri Kanayo Hemrajani who died on 24.06.2011 at C-50, Mayfair Gardens, New Delhi-110016. They were having no child from their wedlock. Apart from the appellant/wife, the deceased has no other legal heir. The deceased has left behind a registered will dated 19.12.1995 which is registered with the office of Sub-Registrar Kashmiri Gate, New Delhi. The particulars of the registration are given in the impugned judgment. It is alleged that the said will was ...
S. Elhance Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.8342/2010 % Judgment reserved on:14. 09.2012 Judgment delivered on:06 .12.2012 S. ELHANCE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi and Ms. Anjali Chaturvedi, Advocates. Versus STATE BANK OF INDIA Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Rajiv Kapur and Ms. Vatsala Rai, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 15.05.2010, whereby he was removed from services. The present petition is the second round of litigation. Initially, the petitioner filed a petition being W.P.(C) No. 4901/1993. The same was disposed of vide order dated 22.09.2009, whereby the Court has held as under:32. In conclusion, since in the finding of the Inquiring Authority on third and fourth Charge alone, have withstood the judicial scrutiny, therefore, the quantum of punishment needs to be looked into afresh by the Appellate Authority. In fact, proportionality of th...
General Electric Canada Vs. National Hydroelectric Power Corporation L ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-2012
4. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision:06. 12.2012 % FAO(OS) 299/2012 GENERAL ELECTRIC CANADA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Trideep Pais Mr. Ashwath Sitaraman and Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Advocates. versus NATIONAL HYDROELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD. & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sachin Dutta, CGSC for the respondent No.1/NHPC. Mr. Rajat Navet & Ms. Prachi V. Sharma, Advocates for the respondent No.2/Alstom. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.1. Admit.2. Learned counsel for the respondents accept notice.3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.4. A contract was entered into on 03.02.1984 between respondent No.1- National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as NHPC), a Government of India undertaking and three Canadian entities with respect to Chamera Hydel Project in Himachal Pradesh. One of the entities was Canadian General...
M/S Unit Trust of India and ors Vs. M/S Jagan Nath Sayal and Co.and an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment Reserved on :30.11.2012 Judgment delivered on :05. 12.2012 CO.A(SB) 35/2010 M/S UNIT TRUST OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Appellants Through Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal. Adv. versus M/S JAGAN NATH SAYAL & CO. & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Samrat K. Nigam, Mr.Kartikey Mahajan and Ms. Ankitya Mahajan, Adv. for R-1. Mr. G.L.N. Murthy, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the impugned order of Company Law Board (CLB) dated 08.06.2010 wherein directions had been given to M/s Hero Honda Motors Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) to rectify the Register of Members and to enter the name of M/s Jagan Nath Syal & Co. (hereinafter after referred to as respondent No.1) in the Register of Members qua 1250 equity shares of Rs.2 each; the unpaid dividend was also admitted to be paid to him for the interregnum period.2. Appellant before this Court is the Unit Trus...
Dharam Pal Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : December 05, 2012 + W.P.(C) No.6703/2012 DHARAM PAL Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.N.L.Bareja, Advocate Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Himanshu Bajaj, Advocate for R-1 to 4 with Dy.Comdt.Bhupinder Sharma, BSF. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. In spite of opportunity granted counter affidavit has not been filed.2. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the counter affidavit could not be filed because draft comments received are inadequate.3. It would be useless for us to adjourn hearing in the matter inasmuch as, for the reasons which we would soon be highlighting hereinafter, an appropriate counter affidavit would never be filed. The reason is, what we have been noticing in case after case whenever administrative lapses/wrongs are committed. Nobody being prepared to accept the wrong and the result ...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Girish Tiwari and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
$ 8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:5. h December, 2012 + MAC. APP. 977/2011 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate. Versus GIRISH TIWARI & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate for the Respondents No.1 & 2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. The Appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. impugns a judgment dated 12.07.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) in a Petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act) whereby a compensation of `3,40,500/- was awarded in favour of Respondents No.1 and 2, the parents of deceased Shiv Narain.2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the deceased was riding a stolen two-wheeler and dashed against a parked truck not HR- 38E-5226. His contention is two-fold; first, the deceased himself was negligent in dashing against a parked tanker and second, the accident di...
Delhi Dayalbagh Coop. House Building Society Ltd. Vs. the Registrar Co ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:26. 07.2012 Date of Decision:05. 12.2012 + W.P. (C) 3868/2012 DELHI DAYALBAGH COOP. HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD. ... Petitioner Through : Mr. K.K. Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rajiv Bakshi, Mr. Bhanita Patowary, Mr. Rajesh Kr. Gupta and Ms. Sumati Sharma, Advocates. Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Adv. (Amicus Curiae) with Ms. Ruchi Jain, Advocate. versus THE REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES & ORS. ... Respondents Through : Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, Advocate for R 1 / RCS. Mr. Anil Amrit, Advocate for R5 to R11. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.1. The petitioner is a house building society and was registered with the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, the RCS) / respondent No. 1 herein, under the provisions of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred ___________________________________________________________________________...
Sanjay Kumar Sourav Vs. Central Industrial Security Force
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: December 5, 2012 + WP(C) 7376/2012 SANJAY KUMAR SOURAV ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Anil Mittal, Advocate. versus CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Amrit Pal Singh, Advocate with Asstt.Comdt.Satyendra Kumar Jha, CISF. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J (ORAL) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Record of Inquiry conducted against the petitioner has been perused.3. After serving a charge sheet upon the petitioner on August 23, 2011 and holding an inquiry, vide order dated December 5, 2011 passed by the Disciplinary Authority penalty of removal from service was inflicted upon the petitioner against which appeal filed was rejected vide order dated 17/18 January, 2012. Revision Petition filed stands rejected vide order dated April 26, 2012.4. No procedural defect in the inquiry proceedings is alleged. Plea taken ...
M/S. Digamber Garments and anr. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:30. 10.2012 Judgment delivered on:05. 12.2012 % + WP(C) No. 4688/2002& 6198/2010 M/S. DIGAMBER GARMENTS & ANR ...... Petitioners Vs GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners: Mr. Manoj Goel with Mr. Jagmohan Sharma, Mr. Gopal Verma and Ms. Viparna Gaur, Advocates. For the Respondents: Ms. Renuka Arora with Mr. Kunal Kohli and Mr. Vikas Sood, Advocates CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J WP(C) No. 4688/2002 & WP(C) No.6198/2010 & CM No.12267/2010 1. These writ petitions have been filed to essentially challenge the communication dated 10.07.2002 issued by the Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (in short DSIDC) i.e. Respondent No.2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned communication as their allotment to plot No.8 (Pocket-F) Sector-5, situate at Bawana Industrial Area, Delhi, admeasuring 200 sq. mtrs., stands cancelle...
Rajendra Kumar Sahu and ors Vs. Institute of Marketing and Management ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2012
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO 101/2012 % Judgment delivered on:05. 12.2012 RAJENDRA KUMAR SAHU & ORS ..... Appellants Through : Mr. Subhasish Mohanty, Adv. versus INSTITUTE OF MARKETING & MANAGEMENT & ORS ..... Respondents Through : Mr. H.L. Tiku, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Yashmeet Kaur, Adv. for R-1 to 4. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL VEENA BIRBAL, J.* 1. The appellants have filed the present appeal challenging the impugned order dated 09.02.2012 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi whereby the application of the appellants under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking grant of ad interim injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 4 from holding further proceedings arising out of the joint charge sheet dated 09.08.2011 issued against appellants 1 to 5, joint charge sheet dated 10.08.2011 issued against appellants 6 to 10 and another joint charge sheet dated 11.08.2011 issued against the aforesaid appellants.2. Briefly, the facts relevant for the disposal of...
- ‹ Prev
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- Next ›
- Last »