Delhi Court October 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.
M/S Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS (OS) No.574/2010 Reserved on:3. d September, 2013 Decided on:25. h October, 2013 % M/S ATMA RAM PROPERTIES (P) LTD ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Amit Sethi and Mr. Mukesh Ranjan, Advocates. versus DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Defendant Through: Mr. J.S. Bhasin, Mr. Gurpreet Singh, and Ms. Rashmi Priya, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 On 5th March, 2013 issues were framed by this Court wherein Issue No.4, which reads as under, was treated as a preliminary issue. 4.2. Whether the present suit is barred under the Delhi Rent Control Act?. (OPD) The objection of the Defendant is that the Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking decree of possession, recovery of a sum of Rs. 1.20 crores, damages and cost of the suit in respect of property situated at Atma Ram Mansion, Scindia House, Connaught Place, New Delhi. The Defendant has been a tenant in the building since 14th May, 1948 pursuant to Rent Deed executed between th...
Smt. Krishna Devi Vs. Airport Authority of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) No.6729/2013 25th October, 2013 % SMT. KRISHNA DEVI Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Syed Qamruzzaman, Mr. Mohsin Israily, Advocates. Versus AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ANR. Through: Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. No.14596/2013 (exemption) Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. + W.P.(C) No.6729/2013 and C.M. Nos.14594/2013 (stay) and 14595/2013 (interim directions) 1. The issue raised in the present petition is with respect to date of birth of the petitioner. Petitioner states that her date of birth should be taken as 10.2.1962 whereas respondents taken the same as 1.7.1945. On account of the later date of birth claimed by the petitioner, the retirement age also therefore be subsequent and not in the year 2005 as has been determined by the respondent/employer.2. The fact of the matter is that the respondent no...
Tej Pal Singh Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C) No.4194/1997 25th October, 2013 TEJ PAL SINGH ......Petitioner Through: None. VERSUS BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED ...... Respondent Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Anupam Varma and Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition, petitioner who was working as a Chowkidar with the erstwhile Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU), and whose successor-in-interest is the present respondent-M/s BSES Rajdhani Power Limited, claims that he should be retired not at the age of 58 years but at the age of 60 years. Petitioner claims that he was born on 25.12.1938 and therefore he would stand retired on 25.12.1998 and not on 31.12.1996 when he was retired.2. Learned senior counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to the circular dated 2.6.1981 issued by the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking, as per which, th...
Sh Brij Kishore and anr. Vs. Sh Sandeep Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-2013
$~79 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:25. h October, 2013 % + MAC.APP. 965/2013 SH BRIJ KISHORE & ANR. ..... Appellants Represented by: Mr. Manish Maini, Adv. Versus SH SANDEEP KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv. for R3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Notice issued to respondent No.3. Ld. Counsel named above accepts notice on behalf of the said respondent.2. With the consent of counsels for the parties, instant appeal is taken up for final disposal.3. Vide impugned award dated 08.07.2013, ld. Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.5,22,384/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization in favour of the appellants.4. The instant appeal has been filed for enhancement of the compensation amount as noted above.5. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has argued the instant appeal on two grounds; firstly, appellants coul...
Sanjay Nagar Vs. Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corpo
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.1494/2008 % 25th October, 2013 SANJAY NAGAR .... Petitioner Through: None. versus DELHI TOURISM AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Raj Kumari Banjer, Advocate for Mr. P.C.Sen, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. No one once again appears for the petitioner. Adjournments on the ground of illness of counsel were taken firstly on 21.10.2013 and then on 22.10.2013. On 22.10.2013, it was made clear that no adjournment will be granted inasmuch as there is a stay of the departmental proceedings in terms of the interim order of this Court dated 25.2.2008. Today, even after the matter was passed over once, no one appears for the petitioner.2. Against the petitioner departmental proceedings were initiated because petitioner was found guilty of evasion of excise duties, receiving IMFL without permit and its s...
Yatinder Mohan Dua and ors. Vs. Delhi University, Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) No.6188/1999 25th October, 2013 % YATINDER MOHAN DUA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Shekhar Kumar, Advocate. Versus DELHI UNIVERSITY, DELHI AND ANR. Respondents Through: Mr. Shushank Shekhar, Advocate for UGC. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. Petitioners by this writ petition seek the relief of being granted the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300/- from the original date of their appointments. Petitioners on their original appointments were granted a pay scale of Rs.1200-1560-2040/-. Petitioners seek the benefit of the higher pay scale by seeking to place reliance upon the letter of the UGC of September, 1990 besides also by claiming that Prof. Abhai Mansingh Committee which made its recommendation on 16.10.1996 wrongly placed petitioners in para 4B of the report instead of para 6C. Petitioners additionally claim that their posts were equivalent to data entr...
State Vs. Vinay Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 31/2013 STATE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Saleem Ahmed, Standing Counsel Additional versus VINAY KUMAR ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR ORDER2510.2013 % KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.1. By this petition filed under Section 378(1) of the Code Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), the petitioner seeks criminal leave to appeal to challenge the judgment dated 4.5.2012, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, thereby acquitting the accused of the charges framed against him under Sections 363 and 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860.2. The facts and circumstances which gave rise to the registration of the case against the accused person, as per prosecution, are that:In the year 2009, prosecutrix used to live with her family including sister, brother Mohd. Arif and parents in the area of Nabi Karim, Delhi. Prosecutrix was born on 15.08.1995. Sh....
Bharat Singh and anr. Vs. State Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-2013
$~05. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 918/2012 % Order dated 25.10.2013 BHARAT SINGH & ANR. Through : ..... Petitioners Mr.A.K. Tripathi, Adv. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Mr.Pawan Sharma, Standing counsel with Ms.Priyanka Sharma, Adv. for State. SI Manu Dev, P.S. Sonia Vihar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S. SISTANI, J (ORAL) 1. By the present petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.53/2012 dated 22.4.2012 registered under Sections 341/325/506/34 IPC read with Sections 27/54/59 Arms Act, P.S. Sonia Vihar, Delhi, against the petitioners and his family members. The petitioners also seek compensation for the harassment and further a direction to book the real culprits including respondent no.3, who have hatched a criminal conspiracy to falsely implicate the petitioner and further unnecessary harassment.2. Notice in this petition was issued. Status report has bee...
Smt.Bimla Rani (Deceased) Through Her Legal Repres Vs. Sh.Prem Chand ( ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + TEST CASE461985 Judgment pronounced on 25th October, 2013. % SMT.BIMLA RANI (DECEASED) THROUGH HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.V.K. Srivastava, Advocate versus SH.PREM CHAND (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Raman Duggal, Adv. for legal heirs of respondent no.1 Mr.Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the respondent no.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.1. This is a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of probate with respect to Will dated 17.11.1969 executed by late Jia Lal. Notice was issued to the State as well as to the legal representatives as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the petition. Citation was also ordered to be published in the Statesman. Report from the collector was received.2. The present petition was initially filed by Smt.Bimla, who was the daughter of late Sh.Jia Lal. Smt.Bimla died during the pendency of the pr...
Poonam Bhargav Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.374/2012 24th October, 2013 % POONAM BHARGAV Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Prafulla Kumar, Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, Advocate. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Through: Respondents Mr. Ravinder Aggarwal, CGSC with Mr. Amit Yadav, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. Petitioner was appointed in an institute in Nepal known as Manmohan Memorial Polytechnic, Hattimudha, Nepal. Petitioner was appointed on contract basis. Petitioner claims that the contractual period was of three years in terms of the subject advertisement but she was illegally terminated before expiry of the period which is questioned in this petition.2. Petitioner however has failed to show any contract of appointment for a period of three years or more. This case was argued yesterday when a different counsel appeared, today a different counsel appears for the petitioner and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »