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.
Suman Kaushik Vs. N.P.Kaushik
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAT.APP.92/2009 % Date of Decision: January 14, 2013 SUMAN KAUSHIK ..... Appellant Through : Mr.S.Rajappa, Advocate along with appellant in person versus N.P.KAUSHIK ..... Respondent Through : Mr.D.P.Kaushik, Advocate along with respondent in person CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL VEENA BIRBAL, J.* 1. By way of this appeal under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), appellant has challenged impugned judgment/ decree dated 06.07.2009 passed by the learned ADJ, Delhi by which the divorce petition of respondent/husband has been allowed and the marriage between the parties is dissolved by decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are as The parties were married to each other on 06.03.1987 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies at Chandigarh. After marriage, they had lived together as husband and wife and a daughter Nitika @ ...
Suman Kaushik Vs. N P Kaushik
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 280/2012 % Date of Decision:14. 01.2013 SUMAN KAUSHIK Through : ..... Petitioner Mr. S.Rajappa, Advocate along with petitioner in person. Through : ..... Respondent Mr. D.P.Kaushik, Advocate along with respondent in person. versus N P KAUSHIK CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL VEENA BIRBAL, J.* 1. The present application was taken up with MAT. APP. No. 92/2009 and CM(M) No. 108/2009 which was filed by the applicant/wife. MAT. APP. No. 92/2009 was filed by the applicant/wife wherein she had challenged the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned ADJ dissolving her marriage with the respondent on the ground of cruelty. In CM(M) No. 108/2009, she had challenged the impugned order dated 06.07.2009 dismissing her application for enhancement of maintenance pendente lite/litigation expenses.2. The aforesaid appeal as well as CM(M) has been disposed of vide separate judgment passed today.3. In the present application, appli...
Ruby Vs. State (Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:14. h January, 2013 + CRL. REV. P. 587/2012 RUBY Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Joginder Tuli, Adv. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. This Revision Petition under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 (the Act of 2000) has been filed by the Petitioner Ruby impugning the order dated 25.08.2012 whereby the Petitioners prayer for setting aside the order dated 14.05.2012 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) was dismissed.2. The Petitioner is facing charges for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC in case FIR No.180/2010. As per the prosecution allegations, the Petitioner was involved in the offence which took place on 18.09.2010. The Petitioner claimed herself to be a juvenile and the matter was inquired into by the JJB.3. By an o...
Himanshu Singh Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: January 14, 2013 + W.P.(C) 5675/2012 HIMANSHU SINGH ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Medhansu Tripathi with Mr.Manindra Dubey, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Sumeet Pushkarna, CGSC with Mr.Varun Dubey, Advs. for R-1. Mr.Athar Singh Dey, Adv. for R2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Notwithstanding service report being awaited qua respondent No.3 we proceed to dispose of the writ petition on account of the reason the petitioner, who was one out of the 18 persons who had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, claims a right to be appointed to the post of Assistant Director under respondent No.2.2. No relief is claimed against respondent No.3. In fact we find that respondent No.3 is the institute where, at the asking of respondent No.2, the petitioner had successfully undertaken the course in Environ...
iari Stenographers Welfare Association Vs. I.C. of Agricultural Resear ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2013
$~R-5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : January 14, 2013 + W.P.(C) 1774/2001 IARI STENOGRAPHERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION ...Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Paritosh Budhiraja and Mr.Abhay Dixit, Advocates. versus I.C. OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Gagan Mathur, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. The issue of pay parity amongst Stenographers working in the Central Secretariat of the Government of India i.e. in the various Ministries of the Central Government and Stenographers working in subordinate/attached offices of the Government of India as also Stenographers working in various Institutes established as Autonomous Bodies by the Government of India was exhaustively considered by a Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) No.102/2001 Mohinder Singh & Ors. v. UOI & Ors. Two pay-scales were in place. Stenographers in the Central Stenographers Service working in...
Priyanka Construction (Baroda) (P) Ltd. Vs. Kla Constructions Technolo ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + F.A.O. NO.371 OF 201.& C.M. NO.14932 OF 201.(FOR STAY) Decided on :14. h January , 2013 PRIYANKA CONSTRUCTION (BARODA) (P) LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ritesh Mehra, Advocate. versus KLA CONSTRUCTIONS TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sohan Lal, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 25.5.2012 by virtue of which the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the application of the appellant under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex-parte decree passed against the appellant on 23.11.2010 and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the impugned order. I do not find any infirmity, illegality or incorrectness in the finding recorded by the learned Additional District Judge so as to warrant interference by this court.3. Briefly ...
Mahesh Kumar Vs. Mcd and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2013
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: January 14, 2013 + W.P.(C) 409/2012 MAHESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. B.S.Choudhary, Adv. versus MCD AND ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms.Shobhaa Gupta, Adv. for R-1. Mr.Sudhir Gupta with Mr.M.Rao, Advocates for R-2 & 3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) CM No.870/2012 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 409/2012 1. Ashok Jain a Municipal Councillor an Honorary Secretary of Hardayal Municipal Public Library indulged in rampant corruption when in between April, 2006 and June 11, 2007 he appointed 799 (somewhere the figure is788) employees to various posts in the Hardayal Municipal Public Library.2. So scandalous was the act of Mr.Ashok Jain that even his party colleague, functioning as Mayor of Delhi, could not over-look the same and the appointments had to be cancelled.3. Two representative writ petitions were filed i...
Suman Kaushik Vs. N P Kaushik
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:14. 01.2013 + CM(M) 108/2009 SUMAN KAUSHIK Through ..... Petitioner Mr. S.Rajappa, Advocate along with petitioner in person. Through ..... Respondent Mr. D.P.Kaushik, Advocate along with respondent in person. versus N P KAUSHIK CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL VEENA BIRBAL, J.1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner/wife has challenged impugned order dated 26.11.2008 by which learned ADJ, Delhi has disposed of two applications of petitioner/wife, one dated 07.03.2001 under Section 24 and 26 of Hindu Marriage Act seeking enhancement of maintenance of child Geetika and for the grant of litigation expenses. The other application was filed on 17.01.2005 on the same provision of law wherein she had prayed for educational expenses and enhancement of maintenance of daughter. The above applications were filed in the divorce petition instituted by respondent against petitioner/wife.2. ...
Raghunandan Prasad and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % CRL. M.C. 1287/2010 + Date of Decision:14. h January, 2013 # ! RAGHUNANDAN PRASAD & ORS. ....Petitioners Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, Advocate Versus $ THE STATE ....Respondent Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN ORDER P.K.BHASIN, J.By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners seek quashing of the criminal complaint no.49/10 filed against them and some others under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954(the Act of 1954 in short) as well as the order dated 2nd March, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi whereby they were summoned as accused for these offences.2. The two petitioners were sought to be prosecuted by the Food Adulteration Department on the averment that they were the directors of the Company by the name of M/s RJP Restaurants...
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Represented By: the Ch
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: January 14, 2013 + W.P.(C) 3274/2012 RAKESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Pankaj Vivek with Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advs. versus DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY: THE CHAIRMAN CUM M.D. AND ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Sarfaraz Khan, Adv. for R-1 & R-3. Ms.Sonia Arora, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. From the pleadings of the parties before the Tribunal it would emerge that the case pleaded by DSSSB was that the candidate named Ashok Kumar s/o Jagbir Singh was issued a Roll No.18714424 and roll number issued to the writ petitioner named Rakesh Kumar s/o Balbir Singh was 18714423. It was further the case of DSSSB that inadvertently the Roll No.18714423 was also allotted against the name of Ashok Kumar in the process of data processing. In other words as per DSSSB, 2 roll numbers got assigned to Ashok Kumar bei...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »