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.
Sh. B.M.Bhatnagar Vs. M/S Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation Ltd. an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C) No.6616/2013 23rd October, 2013 SH. B.M.BHATNAGAR Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Maninder Singh, Mr. Diwhar Takiar, Ms. Ekta Vats and Mr. Jagmeet Radhawa, Advocates. VERSUS M/S HINDUSTAN VEGETABLE OILS CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM No.14381/2013 (Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. CM stands disposed of. WP(C) 6616/2013 1. By this writ petition, petitioner claims the relief of being paid his retiral dues. This writ petition is filed in October, 2013 and petitioners services were terminated in terms of the orders of the departmental authorities w.e.f 17.3.1998 i.e about 15 years earlier.2. The admitted facts which appear on record are that petitioner as an employee of the respondent no.1 was allotted an accommodation at 7670, G.T. Road, Subzi Mandi, Clock Tower, Delhi-7. Petitioner i...
M/S Ashbee Systems P.Ltd. Vs. M/S Agauta Sugar and Chemicals and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2013
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:23. d October, 2013 % + RFA1672004 M/S ASHBEE SYSTEMS P.LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Adv. Versus M/S AGAUTA SUGAR & CHEMICALS & ANR. ... Respondents Through: None. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.CM No.11379/2013 (of appellant for restoration of appeal dismissed in default on 20th May, 2013).1. Notice of the application sent to both the respondents has been served.2. None appears for either of the respondents inspite of the matter having been passedover.3. Considering that the respondents had not appeared on 20 th May, 2013 also when the appeal was dismissed in default, need is not felt to await the respondents any further.4. For the reasons stated, the application is allowed and the appeal is restored to its original position. RFA1672004.5. None appears for the respondents.6. As per the cause list of this Court, regular appeals of the years 2005- 2006 are being heard....
Dr. Habibur Rehman Khan Vs. Naresh Kumar and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:23. d October, 2013. + RFA162008 DR. HABIBUR REHMAN KHAN ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rana Ranjit Singh & Mr. Jaswant Singh, Advs. Versus NARESH KUMAR & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mahesh Verma, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. The appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 24 th September, 2007 of the Court of the learned Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi in Suit No.193/2006 filed by the appellant/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.20 lakhs jointly and severally from the two respondents/defendants, to the extent the same declines recovery of Rs.10 lakhs to the appellant/plaintiff while decreeing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for Rs.10 lakhs with interest and costs only.2. Notice of the appeal was issued. The appeal was on 21st April, 2008 admitted for hearing. The appeal, on 1st May, 2013, on default in appearance of the appellant/plaintiff, was dismissed in default. RFA ...
D.N.Bhargava Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2013
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on September 24, 2013 Judgment Delivered on October23, 2013 + W.P.(C) 6282/2001 D.N.BHARGAVA ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.A.P.Dhamija, Advocate versus UOI & ORS. Represented by: None ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. The petitioner impugns order dated December 22, 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in Original Application No.96/1998 whereby the Original Application was dismissed. The question which falls for our consideration is whether Rule 6(1) of the Released Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Commissioned Officers (Engineering and Medical) service reservation of vacancies (2) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) is arbitrary and discriminatory and the petitioner is entitled to count the service rendered in the GREF, under BRO, for the purpose of seniority in Central Engineering Se...
Amar Nath Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % CRL. REVISION PETITION NO.173/2007 Date of Decision:23. d October, 2013 + # ! AMAR NATH Through: ..... Petitioner Ms. Meenakshi Lekhi & Mr. Jeetendra Tripathi, Advocates versus $ STATE & ORS. Through: * ..... Respondents Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for State Mr. Vijay Dalal, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 7 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN ORDER P.K. BHASIN, J: The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26th February, 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby he discharged respondents 2 to 5 who were charge-sheeted by the police for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 304-B/498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code( IPC in short). The petitioner is aggrieved by their discharge since according to him they had caused the dowry death of his young daughter Sushma and had been wrongly discharged by the Additional Sessions Judge.2. The daughter of the petitioner, Sushma, was married to respondent no.2 Mohan on 16t...
Akhtar Ali (Through Lrs) Vs. Bimla Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2013
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:23. d October, 2013 % + RFA4181990 & CM Nos.10787/2009 & 10789/2009 (both for condonation of delay), CM No.10788/2009 (for restoration) & CM No.10786/2009 (u/O22R-3 CPC) AKHTAR ALI (THROUGH LRS) ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Pramod Kumar and Mr. Manish Garg, Advocates. Versus BIMLA DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Hameed S. Shaikh, Adv. for R-9. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J1 The appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 9 th February, 1990 of the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi in Suit No.248/1989 filed by the appellant against the respondents for the relief of specific performance of an Agreement of Sale of immovable property and in the alternative for refund of advance paid with interest and compensation; by the impugned judgment, the appellant/plaintiff has been denied the relief of specific performance and has been granted a decree against the respondents/defendants no.1 to 8 for...
Jaitun Nisha and ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Sharma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2013
$~46 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:23. d October, 2013 % + MAC.APP. 1222/2012 JAITUN NISHA & ORS. ..... Appellants Represented by: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Adv. Versus AJAY KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms. Santha Devi Raman and Mr. Sanjeet Ranjan, Advs. for R3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 15.05.2012, whereby ld. Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.5,82,780/- in favour of the dependents of the deceased with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.2. Instant appeal has been filed for enhancement of the compensation amount.3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued the instant appeal on two grounds, firstly; the deceased failed to prove the salary certificate, therefore, ld. Tribunal has rightly considered the salary of the deceased as Rs.3,683/- as per the mini...
SachIn Tyagi Vs. Anshu Tyagi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on: October 23, 2013 CRL.REV.P. 536/2013 SACHIN TYAGI Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. M.M. Singh and Mr. Sharad Pandey, Advs. versus ANSHU TYAGI ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL VEENA BIRBAL, J.(Oral) 1. This is a petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. seeking setting aside of order dated 10.07.2013 passed by Learned ASJ, Karkardooma Court, Delhi whereby the order passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 11.04.2013 granting interim maintenance to respondent-wife and her child @ Rs. 7,000/per month has been upheld.2. The grievance of the petitioner/husband is that the higher amount of interim maintenance has been awarded to respondent/wife in proceedings under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (referred to as DV Act). The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier - Rs. 12,000/- per month and on that basis he had offered Rs. 5,000/- a...
Lakhbir Singh Vs. Arun Kumar Khanna
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:23. 10.2013 FAO(OS) No.463/2013 LAKHBIR SINGH ... Appellant versus ARUN KUMAR KHANNA ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr I.S. Aiag, Ms Ishita Chakrabarti and Mr J.S. Bindra : Mr Sudhir K. Makkar, Ms Meenakshi Singh and Mr S. Nayak CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) CAV9192013 The learned counsel for the caveator is present. The caveat stands discharged. CM No.16424/2013 The exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. FAO(OS) No.463/2013 & CM No.16423/2013 1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 10.09.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in I.A No.2822/2012 in CS(OS) No.1030/2009. The said application had been moved by the appellant / plaintiff seeking an order directing the defence of the defendant to struck off on account of failure on the part of t...
Ge Capital Services India Vs. Srihari Rao
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + IA No.7848/2012 (O.37 R.3(5) CPC) in CS(OS) 2858/2011 Reserved on:27. h September, 2013 Decided on:23. d October, 2013 % GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA Through: ..... Plaintiff Ms. Worthing Kasar with Ms. P.S. Thamthingla, Advocates. versus SRIHARI RAO Through: ..... Defendant Mr. A.Rama Subbaiah, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 By this application the Defendant seeks leave to defend under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC. The contention of learned counsel for the Defendant/applicant is that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit as the agreement between the parties was entered into at Tirupati and the defendant is also residing at Tirupati. Thus, no cause of action has arisen at Delhi. Thus, the present suit is liable to be dismissed. Further, the suit is also barred by limitation as the installments were realized till December, 2005 and thereafter the cheques were not realized. Hence, for a cause of action...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »