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.
Lokesh Srivastava Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
$~R-5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2826/2006 LOKESH SRIVASTAVA Through: Versus ..... Petitioner Petitioner in Person. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Adv. for LAC/GNCTD/L& B Deptt. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN % 1. ORDER 03 01.2013 The petitioner before this Court is a resident of Utsav Vihar, an unauthorized colony, which came up on private land of Village Karala and is amongst the colonies seeking regularization by Delhi Government. The allegation of the petitioner is that the land on which the aforesaid colony has come up was sold by the owners to innocent persons by carving out plots on it. Since the land in question has been acquired by the Government, these land owners, according to the petitioner will also get huge amount from the Government, towards compensation for the acquired land. He further states that the Government is going to dispossess innocent persons who have pu...
Niti International Ltd. Vs. Shree Sagarmatha Distributors Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CO.PET. 149 of 2005 NITI INTERNATIONAL LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Tarun Gupta, Advocate. versus SHREE SAGARMATHA DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajiv Bahl, Advocate for Official Liquidator. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR % ORDER 03 01.2013 1. This is a petition under Section 433 (e) of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking the winding up of the Respondent Shree Sagarmatha Distributors Private Limited.2. None appears for the Respondent despite one pass over. It requires to be noted that the attempts made by the parties to settle their disputes during the pendency of the present petition were not successful.3. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Tarun Gupta, learned counsel for the Petitioner and has perused the documents placed on record. The reply filed by the Respondent has been considered.4. The facts in brief are that the Petitioner, a company registered in Hong Kong was supplying to the Respondent computer pe...
Henkel India Ltd. Vs. Mr. Chandan Chhabra and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
#F-11 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1220/2009 HENKEL INDIA LTD. Through ..... Plaintiff Mr. N. Mahabir with Dr. Sheetal Vohra, Advocates versus MR. CHANDAN CHHABRA AND ANR. ..... Defendants Through None Date of Decision:3. d January, 2013. % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J (Oral):1. Present suit has been filed seeking injunction to restrain infringement of copyright in plaintiffs packaging material, rendition of accounts and damages. The prayer clause in the plaint is reproduced hereinbelow:(i) An order for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, their partners or proprietors as the case may be, its officers, servants, agents and representatives from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or advertising directly or indirectly in India or overseas, in a packaging in which the product UJALA White is being sold or any other deceptively similar packaging, thereby restraining infringement of copyright in the packaging of the Plaint...
Kunwar Pal Singh and ors. Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:3. d January, 2013 + CRL. M.C. 3314/2012 KUNWAR PAL SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Ajay Kaushik Adv. along with Petitioners in person. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. Mr. Pankaj Batra, Adv. for R-3 along with Respondent No.3 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) preferred by the Petitioners for quashing of FIR No.233/2005, under Section 420/468/471/34 IPC, Police Station Sultan Puri and consequential proceedings arising out of the same.2. FIR No.233/2005 was registered on the basis of the statement of Savitri Devi (the Complainant). The Petitioners purported to sell a plot of land measuring 48 Sq.Yds. to the Complainant for a sum of `11,50,000/-. A sum of `5,50,000/- was paid as an earnest money and certain documents...
S.P. Thapliyal Vs. Secretary General and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C) No.5990/2002 % January 03, 2013 S.P. THAPLIYAL ...... Petitioner Mr. Ashok Gurnani, Advocate. Through: VERSUS SECRETARY GENERAL AND ANR. ...... Respondents Through: Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocate with Ms. Sana Ansari, Advocate and Ms. Ankita Gupta, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The petitioner, who was an employee of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat/respondents, through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks appropriate writs or directions for implementation of the Assured Career Progression/Financial Upgradation (ACP/FU) scheme dated 5.10.2001. W.P.(C) No.5990/02 The reliefs prayed for in the writ Page 1 of 8 petition are sought on the basis of interpretation sought to be given by the petitioner to the subject scheme that every employee such as the petitioner after 12 years of the date of his joining must get the first s...
K.K.Bhardwaj and ors. Vs. the Secretary, Mha and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
$~R-22&23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: January 03, 2013 + WP(C) 3308/2001 K.K.BHARDWAJ & ORS. Represented by: Mr. R.K.Saini, Advocate. ..... Petitioners versus THE SECRETARY, MHA & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.R.V.Sinha, Advocate for R-1&2. None for R-3&4. AND WP(C) 6818/2001 L.L.SATYANARAYANA Represented by: None. ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.R.V.Sinha, Advocate for R-1, 2 & 3. Mr.R.K.Saini, Advocate for R-8. None for other respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Whereas orders under challenge in WP(C) No.3308/2001 are dated November 02, 2000 and December 22, 2000; the original order and the order dismissing application seeking review. Orders under challenge in WP(C) No.6818/2001 are dated December 14, 2000 and February 14, 2001 i.e. the original order and the order dismissing the application seeking revie...
M/S. Klen and Marshalls Manufacturers and Exporters Lt Vs. Union of In ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:03. 01.2013 + WP(C) 668/2012 AND CM No.27/2013 (for directions) & CM No.9851/2012 (for directions) M/S. KLEN & MARSHALLS MANUFACTURERS & EXPORTERS LTD. .....PETITIONER Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....RESPONDENTS ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE: For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhinav Vashisht, Sr. Advocate with Mrs. Mohan M. Lal, Mr. Ankit Pahar and Mr. Anuj Malhotra, Advocates For the Respondents: Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, CGSC, Mr. Ravjyot Singh and Mr. Aditya Chandra, Advocates for R-1 & R-2 Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Manu Nair and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocates for R-3 CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J 1.By this writ petition, the following substantive prayers have been sought :(i). issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent nos.1 and 2 to treat the filings made by respondent no.3 under Registration not F/202 as null and void and de-register all such filings; and (ii). Issue a ...
Commissioner of Police Vs. Harish Kumar Yadav and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
$~R-21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: January 03, 2013 + W.P.(C) 3283/2001 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.V.K.Tandon with Mr.Yogesh Saini, Advocates versus HARISH KUMAR YADAV & ANR. Represented by: None. ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Respondent No.1 Harish Kumar Yadav had sought a voluntary discharge from the Indian Army and had to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal when his appointment as a Constable (Executive) (treating him to be an ex-serviceman) was sought to be cancelled by the writ petitioner as per its order dated September 24, 1999 on the ground that having sought voluntary discharge from the Indian Army, Harish Kumar Yadav was not entitled to be considered as an Ex-serviceman.2. Now, the Tribunal has noted that the Ex-servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979 do not define as to w...
Bharat Bhushan Puri Vs. Accountant General (a and E) and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: January 03, 2013 + W.P.(C) 3520/2001 BHARAT BHUSHAN PURI ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Sudarshan Rajan with Mr.Rajat Agnihotri, Advocates versus ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E) & ORS Represented by: None. ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the cryptic four page order passed by the Tribunal dismissing O.A. No. 1885/1999 filed by the petitioner is sans any reasons.2. Indeed, the impugned order dated October 19, 2000 disposes of O.A. No. 1885/1999 without any reasons.3. In the first eight paragraphs of the impugned order the relevant facts and the stand of the respective parties has been noted. The operative part of the order i.e. Para 9 reads as under:9. After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records placed before me, I feel that the a...
Government of N.C.T. of Delhi Vs. Smt.Pritam Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
$~ R-18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: January 3, 2013 + W.P.(C) No.3147/2001 GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI ..... Petitioner Represented by: Ms.Avinash Ahlawat, Advocate with Ms.Latika Chaudhary, Advocate. versus SMT.PRITAM DEVI Represented by: ..... Respondent None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(ORAL) 1. Regretfully, the matter calls for a remand before the Central Administrative Tribunal.2. Relevant facts are that the respondent joined service in the Education Department in the State of Punjab. Having served there for a number of years, she was forced to try and seek employment out of Punjab inasmuch as her husband, an senior IPS Officer allocated to the State of Punjab, was under threat from the militants; so was his family, which means the respondent. Her husband Bua Singh, IPS was taken as an Officer on Special Duty in the Ministry of Home Affairs and he requested that the responde...
- ‹ Prev
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 53
- 54
- 55
- Next ›
- Last »