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.
K.B. Chadha Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:21. t December, 2012 % + LPA 847/2012 K.B. CHADHA Through: ..... Appellant Mr. K. Venkatraman, Advocate. Versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate. CORAM :HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J CM No.21386/2012 (for exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The applications stands disposed of. LPA 847/2012 & CM No.21387/2012 (for interim directions) 1. This intra court appeal impugns the order dated 21 st November, 2012 of the learned Single Judge disposing of W.P.(C) No.14146/2009 preferred by the appellant. Counsel for the respondent appears on advance notice and we have with consent heard the counsels finally.2. The appellant is the lessee under the respondent DDA of a plot admeasuring 160 sq. yds. bearing No.312, Dr. Mukerjee Nagar, Delhi. He, in December, 1998 applied for conversion of leasehold rights for the said land into ...
Deepak Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: December 21, 2012 + W.P.(C) 7052/2012 DEEPAK KUMAR ..... Petitioner Represented by : Mr.Rajeev Kumar, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by : Mr.Saqib, Advocate with Mr.Pawan Kumar, Deputy Commandant, ITBP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.Review Pet. 724/2012 1. Disposing of the writ petition on November 7, 2012, as informed by the counsel for the respondents, we had noted that while applying as an OBC candidate the petitioner failed to furnish a certificate to establish he belonging to a notified Other Backward Class; and since lakhs of persons applied for the posts in question the respondents had processed the application forms using computer programme and it was not possible to carry out specific scrutiny of each and every application received. So holding we had held against the petitioner who had obtained more marks...
Parmeshwari Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on :22. 11.2012 Judgment delivered on :21. 12.2012 + WP(C) No.1960/2010 PARMESHWARI ...... PETITIONER Versus STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR ..... RESPONDENT Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Ms. Isha Khanna, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Anil Kumar Sangal and Mr. Siddharth Sangal, Advocates CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J 1.This writ petition is directed against an order dated 01.01.2007, passed by the respondent /bank rejecting the petitioner's request, for payment of an exgratia lumpsum amount in lieu of appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds. 1.1. It is important to bear in mind that the aforementioned request was made by the petitioner under a scheme entitled: The Scheme For Payment Of Exgratia Lumpsum Amount In Lieu Of Appointment On Compassionate Ground In The State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. I would be referring to this scheme hereinafter as the "S...
M/S.Gwalior Polypipes Ltd. Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : December 21, 2012 + RFA(OS) NO.142/2012 M/S.GWALIOR POLYPIPES LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Sunil Goel, Advocate with Mr.Tanvir Nayar, Advocate versus MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. Represented by: Nemo ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) CM No.21390/2012 Allowed; subject to just exceptions. CM No.21389/2012 For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 200 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. CM No.21391/2012 For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 30 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. RFA(OS) No.142/2012 1. The appeal has to be registered as a First Appeal against Order i.e. FAO (OS) for the reason it challenges a decision dated February 01, 2012 allowing objections filed Under Section 30 and Section 33 of the Arbitration Ac...
Vikki Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :5. h November, 2012 DECIDED ON :21. t December, 2012 CRL.A.601/2011 SUNNY Through : Versus THE STATE Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Swastik Singh, Advocate. ..... Respondent Mr.Sanjay Lao, APP. CRL.A.713/2011 VIKKI Through : Versus STATE & ORS. Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Swastik Singh, Advocate. ..... Respondents Mr.Sanjay Lao, APP. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.The present appeals are partly allowed in terms of a detailed common judgment delivered today which is placed in the file of Crl.A.No.732/2011 titled Vicky Kumar vs. State. (S.P.GARG) JUDGE (SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE DECEMBER 21 2012/tr...
Greeneline Transit System Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Secy. Cum Commissioner Tra ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
* + THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI C. M. (M). No. 490/2012 Date of Decision:21. 12.2012 GREENELINE TRANSIT SYSTEM PVT. LTD. ..Petitioner Through: Mr.Vibhu Bakhru, Sr.Adv. with Mr.S.Sharma, Mr.R.Chandrachud, Advs. Versus THE SECY. CUM COMMISSIONER TRANSPORT & ANR. ...Respondent Through: Mr.Vikrant Pachnanda, Adv. proxy for Mr.Najmi Waziri, Standing Counsel for GNCTD. Mr.Chetan Sharma, Sr.Adv. with Ms.Neha Gupta, Adv. for R2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J.1. The petitioner in the instant case is Greenline Transit System Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner company), a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Respondent no. 1 is the Department of Tradnsport, NCT, represented by its Secy. Cum Commissioner. Respondent no. 2 is Shiv Kumar appearing in his personal capacity as the Director of Star Bus Services Pvt. Ltd. (SBS), a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. This petition has been filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution, by the petitioner company,...
Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-v Vs. M/S. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :03. 12.2012 PRONOUNCED ON:21. 12.2012 + ITA NOS. 134/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-V ..Appellant Through : Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. Vs. M/S. N.R. PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD. Respondent Through : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Ms. Rani Kiyala, Sh. Piyush Singh and Ms. Ayushi Pareek, Advocates. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The revenue claims to be aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (IT AT) dated 22-07-2011 in IT a No. 2177/DEL/2010 by which its appeal was dismissed. The following question of law arises for consideration: Did the Tribunal fall into error in directing the deletion of the sum brought to tax by the AO as unexplained income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act? ITA 134/2012 Pag2. Briefly the facts are that the assessee filed its return for AY 2004-05 declaring a loss to the extent of ` 42793/-. It's case was later reopened whe...
Shakeel Ahmad Burney Vs. Union of India Rep. by Its Secretary and Othe ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A): 1. Applicant of this OA joined the respondent-Department under respondent No.4 on 04.09.1971. Nearly five years after his joining as a class IV employee on 02.09.1976, the applicant was appointed as a Postal Assistant, after his having passed and qualified the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE, for short) through Annexure A/2)dated 04.08.1976, asking him to proceed for training before joining as Postal Assistant. Later, on completion of 16 years of service he was provided with one financial upgradation under the Time Bound One Promotion (TBOP, for short) Scheme then in vogue in respondent-department. Later, on completion of 26 years of service, on 02.09.2002 applicant was provided with second financial upgradation under Biennial Cadre Review (BCR, for short) Scheme. Later, with effect from 01.09.2008, the respondent-department adopted the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP, for short) Scheme prescribed by the Government of India, and on...
Lokesh Rana Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A): 1. Applicant of this OA was a candidate before respondent No.1 for the post of Teacher (Primary) under respondent Nos. 2 and 3. A large number of posts under post code No.016/2008 had been advertised by respondent No.1, including various categories of reserved posts. The applicants case was covered through Roll No.01617178, under the reserved category of OBC, and the examination was held on 15.02.2009 in two parts, i.e., Part-I and Part-II. When on 27.08.2009 the result of the Part-II examination was declared, the applicant was shocked to see that the first 13 toppers of the Part-I examination did not get selected in the Part-II impugned examination in any of the categories, and there were many other variations unacceptable to him. 2. Aggrieved, 62 candidates then filed a Writ Petition (Civil) No.11522/2009 before the Honble High Court of Delhi titled Nand Kishore and Ors. v. DSSSB, and another group of 35 candidates, along with the present applicant, filed ...
V.K. Nehru Vs. Chairman and Managing Director and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A): 1. The applicant of this OA is before this Tribunal aggrieved by the action of the respondents whereby they have found him guilty of committing misconduct, and have imposed upon him a major penalty of reduction to a lower post by one rank, and even his review petition filed has been dismissed, allegedly without properly analyzing the grounds raised therein, and in the result, he has prayed for the following reliefs:- a) set aside the Inquiry report dated 30.09.2009, which was submitted by the Inquiry Officer vide order No. 225(A)/HR/DISC/ITDC/07/1682 and b) set aside the order dated 29.03.2010 passed by Vice-President (Engg) of ITDC and c) set aside the order dated 23.07.2010 passed by the Director (CandM) competent Appellate of ITDC and d) set aside the order dated 13.05.2011 passed by the Chairman and Managing Director of ITDC and e) pass such other and further order(s) as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the cas...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »