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.
Aarti JaIn Vs. Uma Shanker Vyas and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: January 09, 2013 Pronounced on: January 10, 2013 Crl. Revision Petition No.283/2004 AARTI JAIN Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Manish Gandhi, Advocate versus UMA SHANKER VYAS & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. R.K. Tewari, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for State Respondent No.3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR % 1. JUDGMENT Order of 6th February, 2001 of trial Court, summoning respondents - Uma Shankar Vyas and Surender Mohan in a complaint case for the offence under Section 500/34 of the IPC was challenged by respondents/accused by way of a revision petition, which stands allowed vide impugned order of 8th March, 2004 while holding as under:On perusal of the entire complaints, it is revealed that the total complaints are directed to conduct investigation into the matter. These complaints are made to the police official and PS to Lt. Governor and are in the nature of brining t...
Azad Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
$~R-1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 489/2009 AZAD SINGH ..... Appellant Through: Ms Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Ravi Sikri and Mr Vaibhav Kalra, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN % ORDER 10 01.2013 The appellant/petitioner, who was employed with respondent No.2 National Research Development Corporation was charge sheeted on the allegations that on 11th February, 1988, he threatened and abused, in a drunken state, the Deputy Chief Engineer of the respondent Corporation thereby contravening Rule 22 and Rule 3 (iii) CCS(Conduct) Rules which are applicable to the employees of the respondent. During the course of inquiry, a telegram was sent to the appellant/petitioner informing him that he was required to appear before him on 8th October, 1992. The case of the appellant is that the said telegram was received by him on 8th October, 1992 and when he went to the premises of the responden...
Sugeeta Chhabra Vs. Harish Nayar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI I.A. No.8998/2012 (by the defendant u/O VI R 1.CPC) in CS(OS) No. 1342/2011 Reserved on: Date of decision: IN THE MATTER OF: SUGEETA CHHABRA 27 08.2012 10.01.2013 ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Advocate versus HARISH NAYAR ..... Defendant Through: Mr. R.P. Sharma, Advocate CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J.1. This application has been filed by the defendant under Order VI Rule 17 CPC praying inter alia for permission to amend the written statement.2. The brief background of the present case is that the plaintiff, who is the sister of the defendant, has instituted the accompanying suit for partition, permanent injunction and rendition of accounts against her brother, the defendant herein, praying inter alia that a decree of partition be passed, declaring her to be the 50% shareholder in the property bearing No.41, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi and 50% shareholder in the movable properties owned by the father of t...
Khem Chand Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
$~R-36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : January 10, 2013 + W.P.(C) 4310/2001 KHEM CHAND ...Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Shiv P.Pandey and Mr.Raghav Pandey, Advocate. versus UOI & ORS. Represented by: Nemo. ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioner lays a challenge to an order dated October 30, 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing OA No.772/1999. The grievance of the petitioner was the act of the respondents to give retrospective effect to an amendment made to the DRTC Rules with effect from August 26, 1995.2. The case of the writ petitioner before the Tribunal was that having rendered five years service as a Senior Technical Assistant he became eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Technical Officer Grade A and this happened in the year 1995. No Selection Board was constituted in the said year as also the next year....
Association of Corporation and Apex Societies of Han Vs. Assistant Dir ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + + + + Judgment delivered on:10. 01.2013 ITA 523/2012 ITA 524/2012 ITA 525/2012 ITA 526/2012 ASSOCIATION OF CORPORATION & APEX SOCIETIES OF HANDLOOMS ..... Appellant Versus ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr Rajat Navet and Mr Kushagra Pandit, Advs. : Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, sr. standing counsel with Mr Puneet Gupta, jr. standing counsel with Ms Gayatri Verma, Adv. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) CM 15411/2012 in ITA No.524/2012 CM 15423/2012 in ITA No.525/2012 CM 15434/2012 in ITA No.526/2012 Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. The applications are disposed of. ITA No.523/2012 ITA No.524/2012 ITA No.525/2012 ITA No.526/2012 These appeals were admitted for hearing by an order dated 04.09.2012 on the following substantial questions of law :(i) Was the Tribunal cor...
Raj Kumar Nirala Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : January 10, 2013 + WP(C) 717/2012 RAJ KUMAR NIRALA ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate. versus UOI & ORS. Respondents Represented by: Mr.Vaibhav Kalra, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. An advertisement was issued by the second respondent, a hospital under the administrative control of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India inviting applications for the post of Workshop Technician in the pay-scale `4000 - 6000.2. Educational qualification prescribed was an ITI Diploma.3. The petitioner applied, and so did many others. Petitioner was lucky. He was selected and he joined.4. Soon thereafter came the recommendations of the 5 th Central Pay Commission which recommended two scales of pay for the post of Workshop Technician. Those with higher qualification were recommended to be placed in the pay-scal...
Nilambar Datt Sharma Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
$~R-4 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA 314/2010 Decided on 10th January, 2013 NILAMBAR DATT SHARMA Through: ..... Appellant Petitioner in person. versus CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. R.S. Mathur, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK A.K. PATHAK, J.(ORAL) 1. Appellant filed a suit for declaration and damages before the trial court which has been dismissed being time barred vide judgment and decree dated 17th February, 2010 which is impugned in this appeal.2. Arguments heard and trial court record perused.3. Appellant alleged in the plaint that he joined the respondent no. 1 as a Clerk in the year 1962 at Amritsar. He was promoted from time to time and posted in different parts of country. In the month of December, 1989 appellant was posted as Internal Auditor at Delhi and thereafter, remained posted in Delhi on different positions and ultimately superannuated on 31st March, 2000. At that time he was posted as Branch Manager of Jamia Nag...
Merck Kgaa and anr. Vs. Mrs. Kusumben K. Bhagat Et.Al.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
#F-3 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1202/2008 MERCK KGaA AND ANR. Through ..... Plaintiffs Ms. Anju Aggarwal, Advocate versus MRS. KUSUMBEN K. BHAGAT et.al. . ..... Defendants Through None Date of Decision:10. h January, 2013. % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J (Oral):1. Present suit has been filed for permanent injunction to restrain infringement and passing off of plaintiffs mark EMADINE as well as rendition of accounts, damages and delivery. The prayers in the plaint are reproduced hereinbelow:a. a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, by himself, his servants, agents assigns etc. from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in pharmaceutical preparations under the trademark ENAMIDE or any other trade mark identical, deceptively and/or confusingly similar thereto; b. A decree for permanent injunction restraining by himself his servants, agents, or otherwise from manufa...
Uttam Singh (Tgt-hindi) and Others Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through I ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A): 1. The subject matter of these three cases being the same, they are being disposed of by this common order. However, for the sake of convenience facts in OA-657/2012 are discussed. 2. The applicants have sought the following relief:- (a) To refix the basic pay of the applicant No.1 and 2 at Rs.18,460/- on 01.01.2006 treating their pre-revised basic pay at Rs.7450/- the of the revised pay scale of Rs.7450-11500. To refix the basic pay of the applicant No.3 at Rs.18,750/- on 0.1.01.2006 treating his pre-revised basic pay at Rs.7500/- the minimum of the revised pay scale of Rs.7500-12000. To re-fix the pay of the applicants for the succeeding years granting their increments in accordance with rule. Pay all the arrears to the applicants within a period of 3 months along with interest @ 12% per annum. Award the cost for the present application. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants have been working as Post Gradate Teachers (PGTs) and Trained Gradua...
Surajit Som Vs. Union of India, Through Secretary
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): 1. Shri Surajit Som, the applicant herein, has instituted this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking to quash and set aside the Presidential Order dated 11.05.2012 (Annexure A-1) by which he has been inflicted the punishment of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period not exceeding three years without cumulative effect with no adverse affect on his pension. 2. We may briefly state the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding the issues involved in the matter. The CBI investigation revealed negligence and deviation from the prescribed procedure on the part of the applicant in respect of issue of one diplomatic and twenty four official passports to the non-entitled persons. The CBI recommended major penalty proceedings but after consulting the CVC, a minor penalty proceeding was instituted against the applicant. The applicant received Charge Memorandum dated 18.1...
- ‹ Prev
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- Next ›
- Last »