Delhi Court December 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.
Pawan Kr. Gupta Vs. M/S Chandra Associates Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on: December 17, 2013 + CM(M) 317/2013 & C.M. No.4711/2013 PAWAN KR. GUPTA Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Kuldeep Singh, Adv. versus M/S CHANDRA ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr.S.S.Nizami, Adv. for R-1. Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. By way of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 CPC, the petitioner has assailed order dated 18 th September, 2012 whereby an application filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside ex-parte proceedings under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC was dismissed by the learned Trial Court.2. Brief facts for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition are that the respondent No.1 had filed an eviction petition against Smt.Krishna Gupta (predessor interest of the petitioner) and respondent No.2 under Section 14(1) (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Smt. Krishna Gupta (respondent no...
Durga Bisht Vs. Directorate of Education and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.4777/2013 17th December, 2013 % DURGA BISHT Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. M.A. Niyazi, Advocate. Versus DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION AND ORS. Respondents Through: Mr. Kartik Jindal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) + W.P.(C) No.4777/2013 and C.M. No.10864/2013 1. In spite of repeated opportunities, respondent nos.2 and 3 have not filed the counter-affidavit. In my opinion, this is a deliberate ploy to adjourn the case and which becomes clear from the speaking order dated 29.7.2013 by which interim order has been passed in favour of the petitioner. The right to file counter-affidavit is therefore closed. Respondent no.1 has already filed its counter-affidavit. Respondent no.4 is W.P.(C) No.4777/2013 page 1 of 13 served but did not appear. Accordingly, let the petitioner argue th...
Sher Singh Vs. Yogesh Aggrawal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-2013
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:17. h December, 2013 % + RFA5652013 & CMs No.19293/2013 (for condonation of 183 days delay in filing the appeal), 19294/2013 (for stay) & 19295/2013 (for condonation of 52 days delay in re-filing the appeal). SHER SINGH ..... Appellant Mr. Braj Kishore Roy, Adv. Through: Versus YOGESH AGGRAWAL Through: None. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW ..... Respondent RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J1 The appeal impugns the judgment and decree (dated 20 th December, 2012 of the Court of Addl. District Judge (Central)-04, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in Suit No.98/12 filed by the respondent) of recovery of possession from the appellant of premises No.5/238, Khichripur, Delhi and of recovery from the appellant of Rs.18,000/- towards arrears of rent and mesne profits at Rs.6,900/- per month w.e.f. 5th November, 2004 till 4th November, 2005 and at the rate increased by 15% every year till delivery of possession minus the sum of Rs.17,000/- paid by...
Rishabh Educational Society Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:13. h December, 2013 Pronounced on:17. h December, 2013 + W.P.(C) 1755/2010 RISHABH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Adv. with Ms. D. Ray, Adv. for R-1. Ms. Megha Bharara, Adv. for R-3. Ms. H. Hnunpull, Adv. for R-4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL JUDGMENT G.P. MITTAL, J.1. Having failed to get allotment of a site for running a nursery school, the Petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the following prayers: (b) A writ of certiorari quashing the action of the Respondent in not allotting land for nursery school to the Petitioner Society after more than 8 years of recommendations and even after clearance from the Institutional Allotment Committee and earmarking of a piece of land, being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, malafide, discriminatory, unwarranted and in gross violation of the Rules, Regula...
India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd Vs. Delhi Administration and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:25. h September, 2013 Judgment pronounced on:17. h December, 2013 % + W.P.(C) 2249/1992 INDIA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.PETITIONER Through: Mr. Siddharth Garg with Mr.Sugam Seth and Ms.Nidhi Mehrotra, Advocates. Versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION & OTHERS Through: None. ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.1. Petitioner by the present petition has sought quashing of the order dated 08.05.1992 passed by the Commissioner of Excise and the memorandum dated 09.06.1992 issued by the Collector of Excise raising a demand on the petitioner for a sum of Rs.9,68,750/ pursuant to the order dated 08.05.1992. ======================================================================= 2. The petitioner, Corporation, a India Tourism Government of India Development Undertaking incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, had applied for and obtained L3 and L5...
Nawal Singh Vs. Mehant NaraIn Dass and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:17. h December, 2013. + RFA7491994, CM No.587/1995 (u/O6R-17 CPC) & CM No.13038/2011 (for restoration of the appeal) NAWAL SINGH Through: ..... Appellant Mr. S.N. Gupta, Advocate. Versus MEHANT NARAIN DASS & ANR ..... Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. The appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 13 th July, 1994 of the Court of the learned Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi of dismissal of Suit No.6/1994 filed by the appellant for specific performance of an Agreement dated 5th December, 1984 by the respondent/defendant No.1 Mahant Narain Dass to sell the property consisting of one room with varandah and open courtyard built on a piece of land admeasuring 50 sq. yds. situated at Khasra No.400, Village-Kilokri known as Temur Nagar, New Delhi to appellant/plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.50,000/-. the The respondent/defendant No.2 Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta...
Shri J.B. Gupta Through Legal Representatives Vs. State Trading Corpor ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.6389/2000 17th December, 2013 % SHRI J.B. GUPTA THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES .... Petitioners Through: Ms. S. Rama, Advocate. Versus STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED AND ORS. Respondents Through: None. 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, who was an employee of the respondent no.1/State Trading Corporation of India Limited, seeks the relief of grant of promotion from the post of Assistant Manager to the post of Deputy Marketing Manager with effect from the date when he became eligible for the same.2. A reading of the writ petition shows that petitioner relies upon the 1986 and 1988 promotion policies of the respondent no.1. A reference to the 1986 promotion policy no doubt states that promotion would be time W.P.(C) No.6389/2000 page 1 of 3 bound and with respect to promotion from Assistant Manager to a higher...
Subhash Chand Vs. Dvb and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5930/2000 % December 17, 2013 SUBHASH CHAND Through: None ......Petitioner VERSUS DVB & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: None CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. Petitioner by means of this writ petition seeks the relief of being appointed to the post of Assistant Electrical Fitter with the Delhi Vidyut Board. Delhi Vidyut Board has been unbundled and now the successor entity would be a DISCOM as per the unbundling scheme. Writ petition however has not been amended to add the successor entity. Possibly for this reason itself, petition may not be maintainable, however, I am deciding the petition on merits as per the record.2. The facts of the case are that petitioner applied for appointment for the post of Assistant Electrical Fitter in Delhi Vidyut Board as per the advertisement in Hindustan Times on 01.3.1999. Qualification for the post of Assistant Electrical...
Sagir and Others Vs. State (Gnct Govt. of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A.452/1999 SAGIR & OTHERS Through: .....Appellants Mr.Naveen Gaur, Advocate for Appellant Sagir, Mr.Adarsh Ganesh, Adv. for Appellant Nissar, Mr.Bhupinder Mehtani & Ms.Neha Maggu, Advs. for Appellant Rahees and Mr.M.K.Thakur, Adv. for Appellants Abdul Malik and Khurshid Ahmed. versus STATE (GNCT GOVT. OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. AND + CRL.A.477/1999 GULAM NABI Through: .....Appellant Mr.Khalil A.Ansari and Mr.Sunil Sagar, Advs. versus STATE (GNCT GOVT. OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. AND + CRL.A.565/1999 JUBAIR AHMED Through: .....Appellant Mr.R.M.Tuffail and Mr.Vishal Raj Sehijpal, Advs. versus STATE (GNCT GOVT. OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. % Pronounced on : December 17, 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRATIBHA RANI, J1 By filing these three appeals, the Appe...
Karam Chandra Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2829/2000 % December 17, 2013 KARAM CHANDRA ......Petitioner Through: Mr. Awadesh Kumar, Advocate. VERSUS UOI & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: None CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. Petitioner had only a contractual appointment. Since this contractual appointment was terminated, petitioner claims reinstatement in service.2. It is now the settled legal position in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC1that a contractual appointee cannot seek regularization or reinstatement in a post, as a contractual appointee will only have a right for a contractual period. The Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra) has laid down the following ratio:(I) The questions to be asked before regularization are:- (a)(i) Was there a sanctioned post (court cannot order creation of posts because financ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »