Delhi Court November 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.
Om Prakash Hans Vs. Col.P. N. Pandey and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2013
$ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:13. h November, 2013 + CRL.REV.P. 760/2010 OM PRAKASH HANS ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Shashi Shankar, Advocate. versus COL.P. N. PANDEY & Anr. Through: + CRL.REV.P. 761/2010 OM PRAKASH HANS Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Hasan Anzar, Advocate for R-1. Mr.Kshitij Mittal, Advocate for R-2. ..... Petitioner Mr. Shashi Shankar, Advocate. versus Col.P.N. PANDEY & Anr. Through: + CRL.REV.P. 762/2010 OM PRAKASH HANS Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Hasan Anzar, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Kshitij Mittal, Advocate for R-2 ..... Petitioner Mr. Shashi Shankar, Advocate. versus COL.P.N. PANDEY & Anr. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Hasan Anzar, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Kshitij Mittal, Advocate for R-2. AND + CRL.REV.P. 763/2010 OM PRAKASH HANS Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Shashi Shankar, Advocate. versus COL.P.N. PANDEY & Anr. Crl. Rev. P. 760/2010 ..... Respondents Page 1 of 7 Through: Mr. Hasan Anzar, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Kshitij Mittal, Adv...
M/S Indogreen International Vs. Dda
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2013
$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:13. 11.2013 + ARB.A. 26/2013 M/S INDOGREEN INTERNATIONAL ..... Appellant Through: Mr Ajay Kumar, Adv. versus DDA ..... Respondent Through: Mr Ajay Verma, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J IA No.18131/2013 (Exemption) 1. Allowed subject to just exceptions. Arb.A. 26/2013 & IA No.18130/2013 2. Learned counsel for the appellant challenges the order dated 22.10.2013 passed by the learned arbitrator solely on the ground that the invocation of the bank guarantee in issue, which is dated 13.05.2008, is not in terms of the bank guarantee. Learned counsel for the appellant says that a bare perusal of the bank guarantee in issue would show that it is valid uptill 04.01.2010, and therefore, the invocation made by the respondent vide letter dated 08.07.2010, is clearly beyond the period of validity.3. In my opinion, this submission is clearly untenable. A perusal of the bank guarantee would show t...
Davender Kumar Vs. Chairman and Managing Director M/S Delhi Transco L
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C) No.3506/2011 13th November, 2013 DAVENDER KUMAR Through: ......Petitioner Mr. M.S.Jadhav, Adv. VERSUS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S DELHI TRANSCO LTD. ...... Respondents Through: Ms. P.L.Gautam, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. Petitioner seeks the relief of being appointed by promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) w.e.f November, 2009 on the ground that petitioner was a successful candidate in the selection process pursuant to the employment notice dated 20.8.2007. As per the departmental examination held on 16.4.2008 for the subject notice a merit list of 104 candidates was prepared on 2.5.2008. Petitioner was placed at serial No.32 in the merit list. Petitioner accordingly claims entitlement to appointment.2. In my opinion, the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition cannot be granted for two reasons. Firstly, even if there are ...
M/S Silver Grand Services and ors Vs. Rajesh Kumar Nagpal and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:13. 11.2013 + FAO(OS) No.511/2013 M/S SILVER GRAND SERVICES & ORS ..... Appellants versus RAJESH KUMAR NAGPAL & ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr Madan Gera : Mr Rajshekhar Rao and Mr Harshvardhan Reddy CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) CAV10052013 The learned counsel for the respondent / caveator is present. The caveat stands discharged. CM No.17884/2013 The exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. FAO(OS) No.511/2013 & CM No.17883/2013 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.09.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in I.A No.16249/2012. By that application, the appellant / defendant had sought suspension of the rent for the period December, 2011 to 19.11.2012 when the premises were vacated and handed over to the respondent / plaintiff. The sa...
Mrs. Shashi Sharma and ors. Vs. Doon Public School and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.6868/2012 13th November, 2013 % MRS. SHASHI SHARMA & ORS. Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. K.P. Gupta, Advocate. Versus DOON PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ORS. Respondents Through: Mr. Manoj V. George, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Yogesh Saini, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition is filed by five petitioners. Petitioners were teachers of the respondent no.1/Doon Public School. The following reliefs are claimed in this writ petition:In view of the premises set forth herein above it is most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may graciously be pleased to: a) Direct the respondent No.1 & 2 to pay the Gratuity along with interest @ 12% per annum to the petitioners for the period mentioned hereunder: a. Petitioner No.1 Smt. Shashi Sharma for the period 11.07.1988 to 31.03.2011; b. Petitioner No.2 Smt. Daljeet ...
Farhat Jahan Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2013
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + F.A.O. No.360 of 2011 Decided on :13. h November, 2013 Appellant FARHAT JAHAN Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate. Versus Respondent UNION OF INDIA Through: Ms. Mamta Binjola, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the order dated 25.3.2011 by virtue of which the claim petition of the appellants was dismissed by the Railway Claims Tribunal for grant of compensation.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Jamil Akhtar, s/o Late Naziruddin and husband of appellant No.1, who was aged around 32 years, working as a private employee, was allegedly travelling by Train No.5610, Awadh Assam Express on a valid 2nd class journey ticket from Nangloi to Delhi Kishan Ganj on 19.9.2008 at about 7.00 hours. It was alleged that he was standing near the gate of the compartment and due to heavy rush in the train, he accidently fell down from the ...
M/S Air India Ltd. Vs. Mahinder Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2013
$~R-185 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7875/2001 Decided on 13th November, 2013 M/S AIR INDIA LTD. Through: ..... Petitioner Ms. Bhavna Dhami, Adv. versus MAHINDER SINGH & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Seema Salwan and Mr. R.K. Saini, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK (JUDGMENT) A.K. PATHAK, J (ORAL) 1. Petitioner-Management has challenged the Award dated 19th July, 2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-III, Delhi whereby petitioner has been directed to reinstate the respondent no.1-Workman with continuity of service and full back wages.2. Industrial dispute raised by the Workman was referred to Industrial Tribunal by the Secretary (Labour), Government of NCT of Delhi, for adjudication in following terms :- Whether the termination of the services of Sh. Mahender Singh is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?.3. Workman alleged that he was working with the Management f...
Manoj Kumar Singh and ors. Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.3129/2011 & conn. 13th November, 2013 % + WP(C) 3129/2011 & CMs 3250/13, 11098/12, 11097/12, 1225/12 & 6611/11 MANOJ KUMAR SINGH & ORS. Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ankit Jain and Mr. Ajay Gulati, Advocates. VERSUS FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, ASG of India with Mr. Ajit Pudussery, Mr. M.Chandra Sekhar and Mr. Aditya Malhotra, Advocates . + WP(C) 1145/2012 PRASHANT SINGH KHOKKAR Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Sanjay Ghose and Mr. Akshay Goel, Advocates. VERSUS FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, ASG of India with Mr. Ajit Pudussery, Mr. M.Chandra Sekhar and Mr. Aditya Malhotra, Advocates . + WP(C) 1459/2012 & CM31852012 (Stay) BIBHUTI BHUSHAN SAHU & ORS. Through: ......Petitioners Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ankit Jain and Mr. Ajay Gulati, Advocates. VERSUS FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. ...... Respond...
Ex L/Nk MatadIn Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2013
1. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. Though the matter was heard at length on earlier occasion but today we found the final order of the Tribunal passed in OA 60/2013 Smt. Bhani Devi dated 07.11.2013 wherein the relevant issues which are involved in this OA were considered and decided. 2. From the facts of the case we find that petitioner originally served as L/Nk in the Army and completed his pensionable service and is getting his pension from the Army. After discharge from the said service, petitioner was employed in DSC where he served for ten years initially and his service was extended for further five years. However, the petitioner over stayed his sanctioned leave for thirty days, therefore, his service fallen short of thirty days to fifteen years, which is required period of service for pensionable service. Meaning thereby the total service rendered in DSC by the petitioner was fourteen years eleven months. However, petitioner was permitted to continue in the service f...
Uoi Vs. Vijay Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2013
$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON:13. 11.2013 + W.P. (C) 13352/2005 ..... Petitioner Through: Dr. Ashwini Bhardwaj, Advocate. UOI versus VIJAY KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Anjali Jha Manish, Advocate for Resp-5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. The Central Government (hereafter referred to as UOI) has preferred this proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming to be aggrieved by an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereafter referred to as CAT) of 12.05.2005. By that order, the CAT directed the UOI to prepare a revised selection list in accordance with Rule 12 (2) of the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) Rules (hereafter referred to as the Rules) enforceable at the relevant time and consider the claims of the respondents - hereafter referred to as the applicants - in accordance with law.2. The applicants are members of the CS...
- ‹ Prev
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- Next ›
- Last »