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.
Vinod Kumar 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 ...
Vinesh Chandra Saxena Vs. Uoi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 480/2011 Judgment reserved on:6. h December, 2012 Judgment delivered on:7. h January, 2013 % VINESH CHANDRA SAXENA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Mr. Ankur Chibber, Mr. Milan Deep Singh and Ms. Aakriti Jain, Advs. Versus UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. K.K. Rai, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Digvinay Rai, Adv. Adv. for R2 & R3. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 13.10.2010 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, whereby invoking the provisions of Regulation 33 of the AAIE (CDA) Regulation 2003 has dismissed the services of the petitioner with immediate effect.2. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 28.1.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby, the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed.3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner was working as W.P. (C) 480/2011 Page 1 Manager...
Satya Prakash Vasisht Vs. Uoi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
$~R-9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: January 07, 2013 + W.P.(C) 2544/2001 SATYA PRAKASH VASISHT ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Vijay Sharma, Advocate. versus UOI & ANR. ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms.Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate with Ms.Bandana Shukla, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J.(Oral) 1. Having a checkered career with the Delhi Police, troubles commenced for the petitioner at the very inception after petitioner was selected for appointment as a Sub-Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police in the year 1978. He had to litigate inasmuch as the petitioner was declared medically unfit. Petitioners challenge to being declared medially unfit resulted in an adjudication in his favour requiring Delhi Police to induct the petitioner as a Sub-Inspector (Executive) with retrospective date of 1978 with all consequential benefits.2. The second round of litigation which the petitioner...
Rishi Prakash and ors. Vs. Dayawati
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on:03. 01.2013 Judgment pronounced on:07. 01.2013 LPA NO. 197/2009 RISHI PRAKASH & ORS. Through: ..... Appellants Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. RajivKumar Ghawana, Advocates versus DAYAWATI ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN V.K. JAIN, J.1. Pursuant to the notification issued under Section 14(1) of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), followed by notification under Section 14(2) of the Act, a scheme for consolidation of the land comprised in Village Poothkhurd was framed and announced by the Consolidation Officer. The appellants and the respondent, being the Khata holders of the said Village demanded 2 bighas 2 biswas and 19 biswas (61 biswas) respectively of the residential land in the said Village. Initially, the appe...
Mahesh Singh @ Rati Ram Vs. the State of the Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
R-1A#$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 1015/2010 Decided on:7. h January, 2013 % MAHESH SINGH @ RATI RAM Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Ajay Verma and Mr. Gaurav Bhattarcharya, Advocates. versus THE STATE OF THE NCT OF DELHI Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for the State. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MS. MUKTA GUPTA, J (ORAL) 1. By the present appeal the Appellant impugns the judgment dated 30th March, 2010 convicting the Appellant for offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC and the order on sentence dated 31st March, 2010 directing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.2. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that PW4 Ram Layak/Complainant has not supported the prosecution case. He has not stated in his testimony that he saw the Appellant stabbing the deceased. Further the presence of PW5 Laxmi Narayan is doubtful as PW4 ha...
Sh. Prem Prakash Vs. Smt. Champa Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS (OS) No.2153/1989 % January 04, 2013 SH. PREM PRAKASH ...... Plaintiff Through: None. VERSUS SMT. CHAMPA DEVI & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Mr. Ravi Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ankit Jain, Advocate, Ms. Rupali Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Ajay Gulati, Advocate for defendant Nos.2 to 8. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) I.A. No.22931/2012 (exemption) Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. I.A. stands disposed of. I.A. No.22924/2012 (condonation of delay) For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 116 days in filing the review application is condoned subject to just exceptions. I.A. stands disposed of. + Review Application No.731/2012 1. This review application seeks review of the judgment and decree of this Court dated 26.7.2012 whereby a preliminary decree was passed declaring the plaintiff to be 2/3rd owner of the property bearing No.1729, Naya B...
M/S Delhi Transport Service Private Limited Vs. Union of India and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: December 17, 2012 Pronounced on: January 04, 2013 + (1) W.P. (C) No.1215/2000 M/S. DELHI TRANSPORT SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Vishwa Bhushan Arya and Mr.Vasudeva Arya, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Ravinder Aggarwal, Central Government Standing Counsel AND + (2) W.P. (C) No. 1556/2000 RAJINDER NATH Through: ..... Petitioner Mr.S.K.Chaudhary, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Ravinder Aggarwal, Central Government Standing Counsel CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR % 1. JUDGMENT The commonality in the above captioned two writ petitions is that both the writ petitioners have suffered eviction orders and to W.P. (C) No. 1215/2000 & 1556/2000 Page 1 challenge the eviction of petitioners, they have questioned the title of respondent. It is in this context, these two writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Petiti...
Chaman Lal and ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRIMINAL M.B. NOS.1044/2011, 1045/2011, 1046/2011, 1047/2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.757 OF 201.Decided on :4. h January, 2013 CHAMAN LAL & ORS. Through: Appellants Mr. N.K. Kaul and Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Amit Sharma & Mr. Rohan Jaitley, Advocates for appellant Nos.1, 3 & 4. Mr. Mohit Mathur, Advocate for appellant No.2. Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Respondent Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Spl. PP for the CBI. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.1. This order shall dispose of aforesaid four applications under Section 389 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and enlargement of the appellants Chaman Lal, Suresh Kumar, Surender Singh and Devinder Singh on bail, during the pendency of the appeal.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that all these four appellants along with one Ramesh Chand (appellant No.5) were tried for an offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II read with...
Sundeep Khanna Vs. A. Das Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:04. 01.2013 + RFA (OS) 135/2012, C.M. NO. 21042/2012 (for stay) & 21044/2012 (for placing on record additional documents), C.M. NO. 114/2013 (for taking on record amended memo of parties) SUNDEEP KHANNA ...Appellant Through: Sh. Sanjeev Sachdeva, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Abhimanyu Mahajan, Ms. Priyam Mehta and Sh. Abhimanyu Chopra, Advocates. versus A. DAS GUPTA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Appearance not given. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. In this appeal, the unsuccessful plaintiff impugns the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2012 of a learned Single Judge dismissing his suit [CS(OS) 576/2005] which claimed a decree of specific performance.2. The plaintiffs case was that the first defendant, representing himself as the sole owner of the property bearing no 186, Golf Links, New Delhi (suit property), entered into an Agreement to Sell date...
Shanti Kiran India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Trade and Tax Deptt.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % RESERVED ON:07. 08.2012 PRONOUNCED ON:04. 01.2013 ST.APPL. 34-39/2012 + SHANTI KIRAN INDIA PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Vinod Srivastava with Mr. Ravi Chandhok, Advocates. versus COMMISSIONER TRADE & TAX DEPTT. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. A.K. Babbar, Advocate. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT 1 The present judgment will dispose of six appeals preferred under Section 81 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereafter called VAT Act) challenging a common order of the Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal (VAT Tribunal) dated 05.01.2012. The question of law urged in the present case is: Whether in the facts and circumstances, the VAT authorities were justified in disallowing the input credit claimed by the appellant, a purchasing dealer.2. The brief facts necessary for deciding the case are that the appellant trades in electrical goods and is a registered dealer under the VAT A...
- ‹ Prev
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- Next ›
- Last »