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.
SachIn Solanki Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:12. 11.2013 + WP(C) No.7053 of 2013 &CM No.15293 of 2013 SACHIN SOLANKI Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Vinay Kumar Garg with Mr. L.S. Solanki, Mr. Vivek Sharma and Mr. Farad Ahmed, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Joginder Sukheja and Mr. M.P. Singh and Mr. Yogesh Negi, Advs. For UOI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(Oral) The petitioner before this Court appeared in Class-I Medical Test at Air Force Medical Centre, Subroto Park, New Delhi for issuance of license and was declared temporarily unfit. The limitations found during the medical examination of the petitioner was EEG abnormality and complete RBB Bon EEG(R). He was advised next review with MRI brain, 2D Echocardiography, Doppler study and opinion of Neuro physician on EEG abnormality. The petitioner was again medically examined on 6.2.2007 and was found fit. On 6.2.2007, AFCME issued initial Class-I fit medical certifica...
Nitish Sharma and ors. Vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA8492013 NITISH SHARMA AND ORS. Through: .... Appellants Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate with Ms. Seema Salwan, Advocate versus GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Mukul Talwar, Advocate with Mr. Sradhananda Mohapatra and Mr. Vipin Singh, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Anubha Agarwal, Advocate for R-2. Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate with M. Mamta Tiwari, Advocate for R-3. Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate with Ms. Seema Salwan, Advocate for 5(a) to (j). Date of Decision :12. h November, 2013 % CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) CM APPL. 17867/2013 in LPA8492013 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. LPA8492013 & CM APPL. 17868/2013 1. Present letters patent appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 21st October, 2013 passed by learned Single Judge whereby writ petition of appellants seeking a direction to the respondent No.1University to accommo...
Arundhati Sapru Vs. Yash Mehra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DATE OF DECISION:12. h NOVEMBER, 2013 + CRL.M.C. 581/2013 and Crl. M.A. 1887/2013 (for stay) ARUNDHATI SAPRU Through: ..... Petitioner Ms. Nisha Narayanan, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus YASH MEHRA Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Probhjit Johar and Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocates with respondent in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) for quashing of proceedings in Complaint Case No.69/1 titled as Yash Mehra v. Arundhati Sapru under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC) pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for offence under Section 500 IPC alleging inter alia that accused a...
Sh. Rajaprakash P. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.7015/1999 12th November, 2013 % SH. RAJAPRAKASH P. Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. S. Narda Kumar, Advocate with Mr. R. Satish Kumar, Advocate. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Through: Respondents Mr. R.K. Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. 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, the petitioner questions the selection and appointment of Assistant Professors by the respondent no.2/School of Planning and Architecture. Selection process in issue is of the year 1998. It is prayed that the select list be set aside and fresh applications be called and interviews be again held for the post of Assistant Professors in Architecture.2. On a query put to the counsel for the petitioner, he does not dispute and it also could not be disputed, that, the post in question is not an automatic promotion post but is a selection post. Therefore, the entitlement ...
Smt. Baljinder Kaur Vs. Guru Harkishan Public School and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C) No.7069/2013 12th November, 2013 SMT. BALJINDER KAUR Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Naresh Thanai, Ms. Anupriya Singh and Ms. Himanshu Pathak Advocates. VERSUS GURU HARKISHAN PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Jasmeet Singh and Mr. Saurabh Tiwari, Advocates for R-1 & R-2. Ms. Purnima Maheshwari and Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocates for R-3. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. Petitioner by this writ petition seeks quashing and setting aside of the order dated 25.10.2013 passed by respondent no.1-school whereby the suspension of the petitioner is continued. This order dated 25.10.2013 reads as under:Ref. No.GHPS/HK/2013-14/7589 Dated 25.10.2013 Mrs. Baljinder Kaur Gandhi TGT(Under Suspension)CO R-23, Sai Niwas Khirki Extn. Malviya Nagar New Delhi-17 Subject: Review of Suspension Order No.6489 dt. 12.10.2011 WHEREAS you had filed a Writ Petition in th...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Pushpa and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2013
$~22A * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:12. h November, 2013 % + MAC.APP. 897/2005 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellants Represented by: Mr.Pankaj Seth, Adv. versus SMT. PUSHPA & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal is directed against the award dated 14 th July, 2005 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation for Rs.5,41,000/with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.2. Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant has argued the sole ground that the driving licence was not valid on the date of accident despite that learned Tribunal failed to grant recovery right in favour of the appellant.3. The appellant examined R-6 Shri H.C.Gambhir, Assistant Director, New India Assurance Company Ltd. as R-6W-I. He has produced seizure memo of driving licence of Respondent No.8, i.e., the driver of scooter...
Mr.Bhupinder Singh Negi and ors. Vs. Airport Authorityof India and anr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.7920/2012 12th November, 2013 % MR.BHUPINDER SINGH NEGI AND ORS. Through: Mr. Rakesh Advocate. ..... Petitioners Kumar Dudeja, Versus AIRPORT AUTHORITYOF INDIA AND ANR. Respondents Through: Mr. Digvijay Rai, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Syed Imtiyaz Ali, Advocate for applicants. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. No.13959/2013 (under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC) A representation dated 9.7.2013 has been filed by one of the applicants. If that applicant would be successful in the representation dated 9.7.2013, then, at that stage cause of action will accrue because on the representation being favourably considered, rights of the applicants will be affected. The application is therefore dismissed with liberty to one of the applicants who has filed the representation dated 9.7.2013 to approach this Court if the department favourably considers the representation ...
Gail (India) Ltd. Vs. Gangotri Enterprises Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:12. 11.2013 + OMP11102013 GAIL (INDIA) LTD. ..... Petitioner Versus GANGOTRI ENTERPRISES LTD. ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner: Mr Ajit Pudussery & Mr M. Chandra Sekhar, Advs. For the Respondent: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.OMP11102013 & IA No.18053/2013 (condonation of delay) 1. This is a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act) to assail the award dated 03.07.2013, passed by the sole arbitrator Honble Mr Justice R.C. Lahoti, former Chief Justice of India. 1.1 Both in the petition filed before me as well as in the course of arguments advanced by Mr Ajit Pudussery, the challenge is laid solely to the rejection of the counter claim preferred by the petitioner. The counter claim relates to the imposition of liquidated damages by the petitioner, as compensation for delay in the execution of the contr...
S. Amrik Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2013
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:12. h November, 2013 % + RFA No.179/2009 S. AMRIK SINGH ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Girdhar Govind & Mr. Noor Alam, Advs. Versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. The appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 21st March, 2009 of the Court of the Addl. District Judge 22 (Central) Delhi of dismissal of Suit No.290/04/01 filed by the appellant, for declaration that he is entitled to the benefit of the policy of the respondent/defendant of regularization of plots/flats in occupation of the persons since prior to the year 1977 , and for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from forcibly dispossessing the appellant/plaintiff from property No.R-536, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi.2. Trial Court record was requisitioned and notice of the appeal issued. Though the appellant/plaintiff along with th...
Dr. Rajiv Dhingra Vs. Smt. Vindra Panchpal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on: November 12, 2013 + CM(M) No.1116/2013 DR RAJIV DHINGRA Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Sanjeev Sharda, Adv. versus SMT VINDRA PANCHPAL & ANR Through None ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(ORAL) C.M. No.16453/2013 (exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. The application is disposed of. CM(M) No.1116/2013 1. In the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 30th August, 2013 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge-01, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in the appeal being MCA No.14/11 filed by the petitioner under Order XLIII CPC. The said appeal was filed against the order dated 7th February, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge whereby the application of the petitioner under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 CPC was dismissed.2. The case of the petitioner is that he has purchased the first floor out of the property bearing No.B-140, Shivalik En...
- ‹ Prev
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- Next ›
- Last »