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.
Uoi and ors. Vs. Abhishekh Dixit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: August 06, 2013 Judgment Delivered on: October 29, 2013 + W.P.(C) 7290/2008 UOI & ORS. Represented by: ..... Petitioners Mr.Rakesh Tiku, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Prakash Gautam and Mr.Vivek Ojha, Advocates. versus ABHISHEKH DIXIT Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.M.Shoeb Alam, Advocate for R-1. Mr.Arjun Pant, Advocate for R-4. Mr.Anil Mittal, Advocate with Mr.Anuj Kumar Ranjan, Advocate for R-5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. The above captioned writ petition challenges the order dated January 03, 2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing OA No.1920/2007 by quashing the order dated June 04, 2007 issued by the Director, SVP, National Police Academy to the extent it concerned the respondent and directed the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to consider the allocation of cadre to the respondent in accordance with the principles laid down i...
Bal Krishan and ors. Vs. Tara Shahzad Bahadur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-2013
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA235237/2005 Decided on :29. h October, 2013 BAL KRISHAN & ORS. Through ..... Appellants Mr.Ashok Kriplani, Advocate. versus TARA SHAHZAD BAHADUR ..... Respondent Through Mr.S.C.Singhal, Advocate CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) C.M. No.13704/2011 1. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that this application is not being pressed as the points which have been urged in the said application are already taken up in CM No.2975/2013. The learned counsel for the respondent does not have any objection.2. Having regard to the statement made by the learned counsel RSA235237/2005 Page 1 for the appellant, the application is dismissed as not pressed. RSA No.235-237/2005 & CM No.2975/2013 1. Colossal court time has been wasted by the appellant by keeping this regular second appeal pending in this court for the last eight years without formulating any substantial question of law in the appeal.2. I have heard both the lear...
Surinder Kaur and ors. Vs. Ramesh Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-2013
$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:29. h October, 2013 MAC.APP. 569/2012 SURINDER KAUR & ORS. ..... Appellants Represented by: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Adv. versus RAMESH KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms. Suman Bagga, Adv. for R3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 17.01.2012, whereby ld. Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.20,63,150/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.2. Vide the instant appeal, appellant is seeking enhancement of the compensation as noted above.3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that from the ITR on record, it is established that the deceased was earning Rs.13,000/per month from the business of sale and service of communication equipment. Thus, the said business was permanent in nature.4. He further submits that the age of the deceased ...
Jaksons Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:29. 10.2013 + ARB.A. 22/2013 JAKSONS DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant Versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant: Mr Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr Ajay Kumar & Mr Badal Dayal, Advocates. For the Respondent: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER,J IA No.17366/2013 (Exemption) Allowed subject to just exceptions. Arb. A. 22/2013 & IA No.17365/2013 (Stay) 1. This is an appeal filed against the order dated 22.10.2013 passed by the learned arbitrator on an application moved by the petitioner under Section 17 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act). The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order in as much as the learned arbitrator has rejected its plea for continuing with the injunction granted by this court, on the invocation and consequent encashment of the bank guarantee furnished towards performance securit...
ifci Limited Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:29. 10.2013 W.P.(C) 1424/2011 & CM No.3043/2011 M/s. S.H. ASSOCIATES ....Petitioner versus RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. . Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Pallav Saxena. For the Respondents : Mr Shyam Moorjani for R-1. Mr Nikhil Jain for R-2. Mr Suresh Dutt Dobhal for R-3. AND + W.P.(C) 2294/2011& CM No.4891/2011 IFCI LIMITED .... Petitioner versus RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. . Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Suresh Dutt Dobhal. For the Respondents : Mr Shyam Moorjani for R-1. Mr Nikhil Jain for R-4. Mr Pallav Saxena for R-6. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 These writ petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 20.12.2010 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal) in Appeal No....
Hindustan Pencils Private Ltd. Vs. Gautam Pencil Industries
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS (OS) No.1075 of 2011 Reserved on: October 8, 2013 Decision on: October 29, 2013 HINDUSTAN PENCILS PRIVATE LTD. .. Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sushant Singh with Mr. P.C. Arya, Mr. V.K. Shukla and Mr. R.C. Pandey, Advocates. versus GAUTAM PENCIL INDUSTRIES Through: None. ..... Defendant CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT2910.2013 CS (OS) No.1075 of 2011 & IA No.7181 of 2011 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC) 1. Hindustan Pencils Private Limited (HPPL) has filed this suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant M/s. Gautam Pencil Industries from infringing the Plaintiffs registered trade mark PLATINUM and also for passing off the goods and business of the Plaintiff as that of Defendant. Other incidental reliefs also have been sought.2. The case of the Plaintiff is that it is a well established manufacturer of pencils and stationery items since 1957. In 1958, the Plaintiff adopted the mark APSARA in respect of various stationery...
Antar Rashtriya Manav Adhikaar Nigraani Parishad Vs. Govt. of Nct of D ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-2013
* % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: September 05, 2013 Judgment Delivered on: October 29, 2013 + W.P.(C) 8683/2011 NYAYA BHOOMI Represented by: ..... Petitioner Lt.Col.B.B.Sharan. versus COMMISSIONER MCD AND ORS ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms.Zubeda Begum, Advocate with Ms.Sana Ansari, Advocate for GNCT. Mr.Ajay Arora, Advocate with Mr.Kuldeep Singh Rathor, Advocate for MCD. Mr.Sumeet Pushkarana, Advocate with Ms.Ruchika Advocate for DJB. Ms.Mini Pushkarna, Advocate for EDMC. Mr.Arvind Sah, Advocate for NDMC. Mr.Amitabh Marwah, Advocate for DDA. Mr.Rajeev Sharma, And Ms.Phaguni N. Lal, Advocates for Director Doordarshan. W.P.(C) 3416/2012 ANTAR RASHTRIYA MANAV ADHIKAAR NIGRAANI PARISHAD ..... Petitioner Represented by: Ms.Shobha and Ms.Jyoti Rana, Advocates versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms.Zubeda Begum,Advocate with Ms.Sana Ansari, Advocate for GNCT. Mr.Ajay Arora, Advocate with Mr.Kuldeep Singh Rathor, Advocate...
Dr.Malti Gautam Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-2013
$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: October 29, 2013 + W.P.(C) 6793/2013 DR.MALTI GAUTAM Represented by: ..... Petitioner In person versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Anil Kumar Gautam, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) CM No.14743/2013 Allowed; subject to just exceptions. WP(C) 6793/2013 1. The petitioner has been heard in person. Learned counsel for the respondent who appears on advance copy being served has also been heard. The writ petition has to be allowed for the reason the charge as also the statement of imputation against the petitioner is vague. It is as vague as vagueness can be.2. It is settled law that the purpose of a charge sheet is to make it known to the delinquent employee as to what he/she has to meet. A vague charge sheet violates the principle of natural justice i.e. the right of a person charged to know what the person h...
SachIn Kumar Vs. Kartar Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-2013
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:29. h October, 2013 + RFA3192013 & CM No.10483/2013 (for filing addl. documents). SACHIN KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Shiv Charan Garg & Mr. Shashank Mittal, Advs. Versus KARTAR SINGH Through: .... Respondent Mr. Shantanu Bhardwaj, Dr. H.S. Chaudhary & Mr. K.S. Goswami, Advs. Dr. L.S. Chaudhary for Mr. Shantanu Bhardwaj, Adv. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. The appeal impugns the judgment and decree (dated 23 rd February, 2013 of the Court of Addl. District Judge, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Civil Suit No.342/2011 filed by the respondent/plaintiff) of recovery of Rs.4 lacs with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization against the appellant pursuant to dismissal of the application filed by the appellant for leave to defend the suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC filed by the respondent.2. Notice of the appeal was issued and subject...
New India Assurance Co Ltd. Vs. Ram Partap and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-2013
$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:29. h October, 2013 MAC.APP. 960/2011 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD. Represented by: Adv. ..... Appellant Mr. Sameer Nandwani, versus RAM PARTAP & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Anshuman Bal, Adv. for R1 and R2. Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, Adv. for R3 & R4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 06.08.2011 whereby, ld. Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.6,02,980/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that on 08.08.2009 at about 9 A.M. deceased Lalit was going on his motorcycle from Nazafgarh to Old Kakrola Road. When he reached Nazafgarh near Dabas Medical Store, offending truck bearing registration No.HR-16GA-0319 came from opposite direction and hit the motorcycle. As a result thereof, deceas...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »