Delhi Court January 2013 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.
Anand Singh Vs. Deepa Sharma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P. (C) No. 4144/1993 Reserved on:2. d November, 2012 Decided on:22. d January, 2013 % ANAND SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Vinay Sabharwal, Adv. versus DEEPA SHARMA & ORS. Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Murari Kumar, Adv. for R-3. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA 1 By the present petition the Petitioner impugns the award dated 5 th February, 1993 whereby it was held that the enquiry was not vitiated and thus there was no illegality in the termination of the Petitioner. It was further held that in view of the serious misconduct of the Petitioner, the punishment awarded to him was appropriate.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Trial Court did not give any finding on the enquiry but went ahead straightway on the merits of the case, which was impermissible. In the alternative, even if the enquiry was held to be not vitiated, the learned Trial Court was bound to take further evidence on the quantum of punishment be...
Pradeep Kumar Sharma and anr. Vs. Smt. Shanta Sharma @ Shanti and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-2013
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:22. d January, 2013 % + CS(OS) No.1920/2011 & IA No.20633/2012 (of the defendants no. 1 to 3 under Order 9 R-7 and Order 8 of the CPC) & IA No.20634/2012 (of the defendant no.1 u/O7 R-11 of the CPC). PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. V.K. Malik, Adv. with Mr. Rahul Raj Malik & Mr. Rajeev Chauhan, Advs. Versus SMT. SHANTA SHARMA @ SHANTI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Raj Bahadur Singh, Adv. for D-1 to 3. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J 1.This suit was filed seeking i) declaration that the plaintiff No.2 Sh. Devi Singh Sharma is the recorded owner of the agricultural land comprising Khasra Nos.218 (2-17), 197 (2-19), 197/2 (1-8), 198 (1-2), ad-measuring 8 Bighas and 6 Biswas situated at village Asola, Fatehpur, New Delhi; ii) cancellation of the documents dated 05.05.2011 executed with respect to the said land; iii) permanent injunction restraining the defendants f...
Delhi Diocesan Trust Association Vs. Lawrance Messy
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of order:- 22.01.2013 CM(M) 80/2013 & C.M.No.1063/2013 DELHI DIOCESAN TRUST ASSOCIATION Through: ..... Petitioner Mr.Sunil Kumar Singh and Mr.P.K.Mishra, Advocates. versus LAWRANCE MESSY Through: ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI % PRATIBHA RANI, J.(Oral) 1. The present petitioner, who is plaintiff in Suit No.24/2010, is aggrieved by the order dated 25.10.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge whereby his prayer for deleting the issue No.2, has been declined by the Court.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for possession, permanent injunction and recovery of damages and compensation against the defendant seeking possession of Quarter No. 4 at 1, Church Lane, New Delhi, allotted to the respondent during the course of his employment. Respondent had ceased to be the employee of petitioner as 10.09.2001, the respondent requested in writing for his earlier retire...
Anwar HussaIn Vs. Kailash Chand Aggarwal @ Kailash Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision :22. d January, 2013 % + CM(M) 63/2013 ANWAR HUSSAIN Through : ..... Petitioner Mr.Raj Kumar Sherawat, Mr.Anand Kumar and Mr.Rakesh Gaur, Advs. versus KAILASH CHAND AGGARWAL @ KAILASH GUPTA Through : ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI % PRATIBHA RANI, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for modification of the order dated 02.01.2013 passed by learned Addl. District Judge and also for waiver of the condition to deposit the entire decretal amount.2. Vide order dated 02.01.2013, which is under challenge in this petition, the petitioner herein was directed by the learned Appellate Court/Addl. District Judge-2 (North) to deposit the decretal amount with the Trial Court within ten days as a condition precedent for granting stay of the impugned judgment and decree. It was also ordered that 50% of the amount so deposited by the petitione...
Bhausaheb Shankar Salunke Manager (Technical) and Another Vs. the Unio ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-2013
Mrs. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A): 1. By this common order, as suggested by the counsel for parties, we propose to dispose of OA 3513/2012 and 3514/2012 together as facts and issues involved in both the OAs are identical. The facts have, however, been extracted from OA 3513/2012. 2. The applicant was appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer on regular basis in City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (CIDCO) on 23.05.1994. Vide advertisement dated 12.02.2001, the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) advertised posts of Manager (Technical) to be filled on deputation basis and in the advertisement, it was provided that selected deputationist may also be considered for absorption in NHAI as per their policy/rules. CIDCO released the applicant to join NHAI on deputation basis for two years and he joined NHAI on the post of Manager (Tech) on 28.08.2001. The applicant continued to work in NHAI on deputation, which was renewed from time to time. On 12.05.19...
Ved Prakash Vs. Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-2013
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A): 1. The applicant has sought the following relief:- (a) Quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 15.6.2010 and 1.4.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority and Disciplinary Authority of the respondents. Quash and set aside the finding given by the Enquiry Officer. Award all consequential benefits. Award costs of the proceedings and Pass any other order/direction which this Honble Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The applicant is a Head Constable in Delhi Police. A departmental enquiry was initiated against him vide order dated 24.03.2008 on the allegation as under:- On 30.11.2007 HC Ved Parkash No. 80/SW while posted at PS Dwarka was on leave had visited Police booth in Sector 12 Dwarka and started misbehaving, quarreling, abusing and shouted with Ct. Satbir NO. 1123/SW beat Ct. of the area under the intoxication. Ins...
Ms. Meena Kumari Vs. Govt. of N.C.T.D Through Chief Secretary and Othe ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-2013
1. The applicant, a Post Graduate Teacher in Fine Art, has filed the OA having been aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.08.2011 in rejecting her request for grant of study leave to pursue her Ph. D Course in the Department of Music, University of Delhi in the subject Spiritual Nature of Indian Sculpture and Arts. 2. The applicant submits that she was originally appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) of Fine Arts and thereafter was promoted to the post of PGT (Fine Arts) and working as such for the last about 14 years. She further submits that she is possessing of a degree of Master of Fine Arts from the College of Fine Art of Delhi and secured 71% marks with top rank in the said course. 3. It is further submitted that the applicant is governed by the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 and under Rule 50 of the said Rules, the Government servants are entitled for granting of study leave to pursue a special course of study consisting of higher studies or specialized trai...
Bhausaheb Shankar Salunke and Another Vs. the Union of India, Through ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-2013
Mrs. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A): 1. By this common order, as suggested by the counsel for parties, we propose to dispose of OA 3513/2012 and 3514/2012 together as facts and issues involved in both the OAs are identical. The facts have, however, been extracted from OA 3513/2012. 2. The applicant was appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer on regular basis in City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (CIDCO) on 23.05.1994. Vide advertisement dated 12.02.2001, the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) advertised posts of Manager (Technical) to be filled on deputation basis and in the advertisement, it was provided that selected deputationist may also be considered for absorption in NHAI as per their policy/rules. CIDCO released the applicant to join NHAI on deputation basis for two years and he joined NHAI on the post of Manager (Tech) on 28.08.2001. The applicant continued to work in NHAI on deputation, which was renewed from time to time. On 12.05.19...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S Cosmic Softech Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-2013
Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member This appeal has been preferred by the revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-VI, New Delhi dated 09.02.2011 for AY 2006-07. The grounds raised by the revenue in this appeal read as under:- "1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting addition of Rs. 30000/- on account of disallowance of STPI charges ignoring the fact that the assessee's unit was not functioning under any of the Software Technology Parks of India Scheme. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of Rs.4419249/:- on account of disallowance of advertisement expenses. Hon'ble Apex Court in its ruling in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Limited vs. CIT (225 ITR 802) has stated that if the benefit of incurring expenditure is stretched over a number of years then that expenditure can be amortized over a number of years. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, t...
R N Malhotra Vs. Dhanesh Kumar JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:13. h February, 2013 Pronounced on:21. t February, 2013 + CRL.M.C. 2787/2010 R N MALHOTRA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr.Praveen Kumar, Advocate versus DHANESH KUMAR JAIN & ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Surender Chauhan, Advocate for R-1 Mr. S.K.Kalia, Advocate for R-3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.1. The present Petition is dismissed in terms of the judgment passed today in CRL.M.C. 2782/2010 titled R.N. MALHOTRA v. BHUPESH KUMAR JAIN & ORS.2. For detailed order, please see the above mentioned judgment. (G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE FEBRUARY 21 2013 vk...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »