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.
Laxmi NaraIn Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3236/1996 % January 07, 2013 LAXMI NARAIN ..... Petitioner Through: None. versus UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Rahul Bhandari, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner although the matter is effective item No.15 on the Regular Board and it is 2.50 P.M.2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:i) To issue direction/orders/writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing/ordering the Respondent Institute to re-appoint the Petitioner and grant him temporary status pending regularization of his services in terms of OM dated 10.9.93 (Annexure P-3). ii) To issue any other order/direction or appropriate writ that may be deemed fit under the circumstances of the case. To award costs. iii) 3. A reading of the petition shows that the petitioner essentially clai...
Birender Singh Shekher Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
$~R-8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON:07. 01.2013 + W.P. (C) 5874/2000 BIRENDER SINGH SHEKHER ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. H.D. Sharma, Advocate. versus UOI AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Barkha Babbar, Advocate with Mr. Bhupinder Sharma, Dy. Commandant. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % The petitioner challenges an order dated 7.2.2000 made by the Central Government in exercise of its power under Rule 21 (2) of the BSF Rules, 1969. The petitioner was compulsorily retired from service by the said impugned order.2. The brief facts necessary for deciding the case are that the petitioner joined the Border Security Force (BSF) on 2.1.1995 as a probationer Assistant Commandant and was posted to Murshidabad, West Bengal. On 24.5.1997, the Commandant of his Battalion ordered preparation of record of evidence (ROE) against the petitioner in respect of an allegation th...
indo Rolhard Industries Ltd. Vs. M. K. Mahajan and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:23. d August, 2012 Date of Decision:7th January, 2013 % + CO. APP. 19/2009 INDO ROLHARD INDUSTRIES LTD. .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sarat Chandra, Mr. Manoj Kumar Garg, Mr. Animesh Kumar Sinha and Mr. Abhinav Anand, Advocates. versus M. K. MAHAJAN & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Ms. Vibha Mahajan Seth, Advocate. Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate for Official Liquidator. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR R.V. EASWAR, J.The short question that arises in this appeal is whether the company court can order winding up of a company without ordering the petition to be advertised.2. The appellant is a company. A petition was filed by two shareholders for winding up of the company under section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956 before the company court. The company court (learned single judge) by the impugned order: (a) admitted the petition; (b) directed the company to be wound up; (c) appointed the official liquida...
Bhim SaIn Taneja Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:7. h January, 2013 + CRL. REV. P. 33/2012 BHIM SAIN TANEJA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Prem Kumar Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. & Mr. Ashish Sharma, Adv. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Adv. with Ms. Meenu Chauhan, Adv. for the Complainant along with Complainant in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) CRL. REV. P. 33/2012 and Crl.MA 4/2013 1. This Revision Petition is directed against a judgment dated 09.01.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) whereby the Appeal against the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay compensation of `54 lacs and in default of payment of compensation, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 180 days imposed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) in Complaint Case under Section 138...
Ramesh Vs. the State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
$~33-35 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 298/2002 % RAMESH Judgment reserved on 6th December, 2012 Judgement delivered on 7th January, 2013 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. A.J.Bhambhani and Ms. Nisha Bhambhani, Advs. along with appellant in person. Versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Fizani Hussain, APP with SI Prem Singh, P.S. Malviya Nagar. AND + CRL.A. 362/2002 RAJ KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. A.J.Bhambhani and Ms. Nisha Bhambhani, Advs. along with appellant in person. versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Criminal Appeal 298/2002 Ms. Fizani Hussain, APP with SI Prem Singh, P.S. AND + CRL.A. 423/2003 VIJAY PAL ..... Appellant Through: Mr. A.J.Bhambhani and Ms. Nisha Bhambhani, Advs. along with appellant in person. Versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI).... Respondent Through: Ms. Fizani Hussain, APP with SI Prem Singh, P.S. Malviya Nagar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK A.K. PATHAK, J.1. All...
Aruna Meena Vs. Union of India and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: January 07, 2013 + W.P.(C) 4724/2012 ARUNA MEENA Represented by: Khan, Advocate. ..... Petitioner Dr.Chaudhary Shamsuddin versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.B.V.Niren, Advocate with Mr. Prasouk Jain, Advocate for R.1/UOI. Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Advocate with Ms.Aditi Gupta, Mr.Manoj Joshi, Advocate for R.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J.(Oral) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Vide impugned decision dated July 10, 2012, O.A. No.2234/2012 filed by the writ petitioner has been dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.3. Facts are short. On September 16, 2010 UPSC issued an advertisement inviting amongst others applications for 81 posts of Drug Inspectors in the Central Drugs Standards Control Organization (vide Sl.No.4) were advertised.4. As per the advertisement in question, Essential Qualifications prescribed...
Govind Singh Rana and ors Vs. National Technical Research Organisation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: January 07, 2013 + W.P.(C) 2412/2012 GOVIND SINGH RANA AND ORS ..... Petitioners Represented by: Ms.Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate instructed by Mr.A.K.Trivedi, Advocate versus NATIONAL TECHNICAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Rajeev Mehra, A.S.G. instructed by Ms.Barkha Babbar, Advocate for UOI. + W.P.(C) 2413/2012 VINOD KUMAR AND ORS ..... Petitioners Represented by: Ms.Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate instructed by Mr.A.K.Trivedi, Advocate versus NATIONAL TECHNICAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Rajeev Mehra, A.S.G. instructed by Ms.Barkha Babbar, Advocate for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners states that the writ petition is being pressed on the limited ground pertaining to the principle of lastcome-first go.3. The writ ...
Sanjeev Verma Vs. District and Session Judge
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C) No. 6329/2011 Judgment reserved on:16. h October, 2012 Judgment delivered on:07. h January, 2013 % SANJEEV VERMA Through: ..Petitioner Mr. N. Safaya, Advocate Versus DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE ..Respondent Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat and Ms. Latika Chaudhary, Advocates CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside the order/letter dated 10th June, 2011 issued by the respondent. Consequently, the respondent be directed to pay pension to the petitioner as per the norm/rule from 4th July, 2009 with interest @ 15% per annum.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined as LDC on 12.03.1997 with the respondent. Vide order dated 16.03.2004, he was put under suspension by the respondent. Vide order dated 04.07.2009, the respondent imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner by passing the following order:- Having regard to the totali...
Union of India and ors. Vs. Satya Prakash
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: January 07, 2013 + W.P.(C) 525/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Ruchir Mishra, Advocate and Mr.Sanjiv K.Saxena, Advocate. versus SATYA PRAKASH ..... Respondent Represented by: Respondent in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J.(Oral) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent who appears in person.2. Pertaining to whether respondent had to pay `18,000/- as a one-time payment for the CGHS card or `60,000/- has been settled by this Court vide order dated January 25, 2012. The resolution of the dispute is in favour of the respondent and thus we are concerned with only one issue.3. The issue relates to the directions issued by the Tribunal as per the impugned decision dated August 04, 2011 to the effect that the respondent would be entitled to simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date retiral benefits, ...
Saroj Aggarwal and anr. Vs. Shakuntala Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI IA No. 13807/2011 (O.39 R.1 & 2 CPC) & IA No.7876/2011 (O.39 R. 4 CPC) In CS(OS) 617/2011 Judgment delivered on:07. h January, 2013 SAROJ AGGARWAL AND ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through Mr.Rajeev Nayyar&Mr.Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Advs. with Mr.TejasKaria, Mr.DeepeshAneja, Mr.AradhanaLakhtakia, Mr.Karan Mehra, Mr.Manavendra Mishra, Advs. Versus SHAKUNTALA AGGARWAL ..... Defendant Through Mr.SandeepSethi, Sr. Adv. with Rajesh Gupta and Mr.HarpreetSingh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR 1 By this order I propose to dispose of application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, CPC and the application filed by the defendant under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151, CPC to seek vacation of restraint order dated 7.4.2011 and for modification of order dated 14.3.2011.2. Vide an ex-parte order dated 14.3.2011, the defendant was restrained from parting Page 1 of 18 with possession of any part of the property or creating any third...
- ‹ Prev
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- Next ›
- Last »