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.
Sanjay Kumar Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.2301/2010 % January 31, 2013 SANJAY KUMAR Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. A.P. Dhamija, Advocate. versus LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Meghna Sankhla, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner who was terminated from services of respondent No.1-Life Insurance Corporation of India during the probationary period, seeks the relief of quashing the orders refusing to extend the probation period and thereby terminating his services. The impugned orders are dated 16.12.2008 and 2.1.2010.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as an Apprentice Development Officer by the respondent No.1 as per the appointment letter dated 17.12.2007. Paras 2 and 10 of the said appointment letter read as under:2. PROBATIONARY PERIOD: You shall be on probation initially for a period ...
Fab India Overseas Private Limited Vs. S.N. Sheopori
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA (OS) NO. 118/2011 & CM No. 6572/2012 Reserved on:18. h December, 2012 Date of Decision:31. t January, 2013 % FAB INDIA OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Appellant Through Mr. Raman Kapur, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Ajay Kapur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.K. Mehta, Mr. Virender Mehta, Mr. Kunal Mehta and Mr. Gautam Mehta, Advocates. Versus S.N. SHEOPORI ..... Respondent Through Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Mr. Sanjiv Sindhwani, Mr. Sahil Bhalaik and Mr. Uddyam Mukherjee, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG SANJIV KHANNA, J: This judgment disposes of the first appeal filed by Fab India Overseas Private Limited and the cross-objections filed by Janak Mushran against the judgment and decree dated 4th July, 2011 passed by the single Judge in CS(OS) No. 246/2009 titled S.N. Sheopori and Janak Mushran v. Fab India Overseas Private Limited.2. Before dwelling into the disputed questions, we deem it appropriate to state the undis...
Tulsi Ram Arya Vs. Chairman D.V.B. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.618/2001 % January 31, 2013 TULSI RAM ARYA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr.H.D.Sharma & Mr. Dev.P. Bhardwaj, Advs. versus CHAIRMAN D.V.B. & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms.Uttara Babbar, Adv. for R-1 & 2. Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna & Mr. Narayan, Advs. for R-4. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner who is a retired employee of the Delhi Vidyut Board, seeks release of the part of the terminal benefits which were not paid to the petitioner on account of a criminal case under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) pending against the petitioner. The petitioner also prays that besides the terminal benefits which have to be released to him, the petitioner be also paid all terminal benefit amounts which have been retained. The retention of in-interest is now the respondent No.3/M/s. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (BYPL). Following are...
Arti Vs. Raj Kumar Aggarwal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + R.S.A NO.17/2013 & C.M. NOS.1590-1591/2013 Decided on :31. t January, 2013 ARTI Through: Appellant Ms. Gunjan Chowksey, Advocate. Versus RAJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & ANR. Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a second appeal under Section 100 CPC read with Order 42 CPC against the judgment dated 17.10.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge.2. Yesterday, the matter was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant and thereafter the learned counsel had very fairly stated that she is not pressing her appeal and she will confine her submissions only to the question of grant of time as the appellant was in occupation of the premises as a tenant since 1997. Accordingly, the matter was kept for today for the purpose of obtaining instructions as to how much time is sought by the appellant.3. Today, the learned counsel for the appellant has started arguing all over again that a substantial question of law i...
Smt. Madhumita Kaur Vs. Shri Zile Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:31. t January, 2013 + CRL. M.C. 3008/2011 SMT. MADHUMITA KAUR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, Adv. Mr. Naseem Anwar, Adv. versus SHRI ZILE SINGH Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Prashant Jain Adv. with Mr. Atul Rawat, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. The Petitioner invokes the inherent powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for quashing of a Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act) filed by Respondent No.2 for dishonour of the cheque for `9,70,000/-.2. The Petitioners plea is that apart from the fact that cheque was issued only towards delivery of a Tata Safari car and since it was actually delivered, the cheque was required to be returned by Respondent No.2; on admitted averments, the cheque delivered to Respondent No.2 in Lucknow, ...
Mirza Zafar Begg Vs. Jamia Millia Islamia Through Its Registrar and an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.1902/2008 % January 31, 2013 MIRZA ZAFAR BEGG Through: ..... Petitioner Ms. Pragya, Advocate. versus JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. A. Siddiqui, Advocate with Mr. Rohit Gandhi, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the relief of grant of pensionary benefits by including the period of initial employment as an ad hoc employee/Personal Assistant with the respondent No.1-University in March, 1988, instead of the subsequent date taken of 17.1.1995. It is not disputed that the petitioner did in fact join the services of respondent No.1 as Personal Assistant in March, 1988, and thereafter the petitioners services were regularized on the said post of Personal Assistant in the Department and Faculty of Engineering and Technology w.e.f 17.1.1995. The petitioner...
Devinder Kumar Dagar Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: January 14, 2013 Decision on: January 31, 2013 WP(C) No.24094 of 2005 DEVINDER KUMAR DAGAR .Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate versus INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajat Navet & Mr. Kaushagra Pandit, Advocates CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT 31 01.2013 1. The background to the present petition is that the Petitioner was serving with the Delhi Police as a constable when he was informed by the Respondent No.1, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL), by a letter dated 6th December 1996, that he had been selected to the post of Vigilance Assistant (Marketing) in the Marketing Division of IOCL at Calcutta. The appointment was initially for a period of two years by way of deputation in the pay scale of Rs. 2318-3913. It was stated therein that during the period of deputation, the Petitioner would have the option to draw the grade pay + deputation (duty) allowance, which should not exceed the ...
Commissioner of Police Vs. Hc Fateh Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: January 31, 2013. + W.P.(C) 7776/2010 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE .... Petitioner Represented by: Ms.Nandita Rao, Advocate versus HC FATEH SINGH ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Anil Singal, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Allowing O.A.No.79/2008 and as a result quashing the penalty levied upon the respondent, the reasoning of the Tribunal as per the impugned order dated August 17, 2009 reads as under:Rule 16(ix) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 clearly provides that in case the different charge than what has been framed against the police officer is made out, it is incumbent upon the inquiry officer to include it in the charge and thereafter a reasonable opportunity to rebut effectively is to be given. As the aforesaid procedure has not been followed, applicant has been prejudiced and this methodology adopted by the resp...
Delhi Administration Through Designated Officer Vs. Manohar Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:24. h January, 2013 Pronounced on:31. t January, 2013 + CRL.L.P.265 /2012 DELHI ADMINISTRATION THROUGH DESIGNATED OFFICER ..... Petitioner Through: Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP Versus MANOHAR LAL Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Asha Tiwari, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.1. The Petitioner seeks leave to Appeal against a judgment dated 11.11.2011 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge(ASJ) acquitted the Respondent of the charge under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act(PFA Act) primarily on the ground that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate(MM) did not examine the aspect that Tartrazine was one of the permitted synthetic colours to be used specifically under Rule 29 of the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (PFA Rules) and that there was a delay of six days in signing the report by the Public Analyst which was fatal.2. In Prem Ballab and Anr. v. State(Delhi Adm...
iqbal Chand Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P(C) No. 13834/2009 & conn. 31st January, 2013 % + W.P.(C) 13834/2009 IQBAL CHAND ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Bhim Sain, Adv. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS Through: ..... Respondents Ms. Sangeeta Sondhi, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Anupam Varma and Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocates for NDPL (TPDDL) Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Adv. with Mr. Piyush Royal, Adv. and Mr. Narayman, Manager Pension Trust. + W.P.(C) 157/2010 J P SHARMA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. L.D.Adlakha and Ms. Ripu Adlakha, Advocates. versus DELHI POWER CO LTD AND OTHERS WPC 13834-2009&conn. Through: Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Adv. with Mr. Piyush Royal, Adv. and Mr. Narayman, Manager Pension Trust. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Anupam Varma and Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocates for NDPL (TPDDL) + W.P.(C) 241/2010 VED PRAKASH BANSAL Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. L.D.Adlakha and Ms. Ripu Adlakha, Advocates. versus DELHI POWER CO LTD AND OTHERS Through: .......
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »