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.
Kavita Mishra Vs. Directorate of Education and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C) No.2221/2011 11th December, 2013 KAVITA MISHRA Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Subhash Sharma and Mr. Om Prakash Mishra, Advocates. VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Anjum Javed, Adv. for R-1 with Dr. Sudershan Kumar, L.A2III Mr. A.K.Sakhija and Mr. Puneet Saini, Advocates for R-2 and 3. 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, petitioner prays for basically two reliefs. First relief is for quashing the letters by which the petitioners services were to be terminated on the ground that petitioner was over-age. The second relief which is claimed by the petitioner is that petitioner must be paid arrears of salary as per recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission Report.2. I may note that since the respondent no.2-school took up a stand that the petitioners services had to be terminated on account of directions o...
Mrs. Neelam Kaushal Vs. New Delhi Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.1876/2000 11th December, 2013 % MRS. NEELAM KAUSHAL Through: ..... Petitioner Ms. Deepa Kathpalia, Advocate. Versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. Respondents Through: Mr. B.B. Gupta, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 7. 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, essentially two reliefs are claimed by the petitioner. First relief is to quash the office order dated 6.4.2000 and consequently her being declared as Vice Principal w.e.f 1.4.1990 and not from 29.10.1999. Second relief is that since petitioner has by a subsequent order by the competent authority of the same date i.e 6.4.2000, in spite of being appointed as Vice Principal, has been directed to perform the duties of Coordinator Computerization Programmes, the same is prayed to be quashed for giving petitioner duties of a Vice Principal in a school.2. The facts of the case ar...
Mr. S.P. Sharma Vs. I.F.C.i. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.97/2013 11th December, 2013 % MR. S.P. SHARMA Through: Versus I.F.C.I. LTD. AND ANR. Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate. Respondents Mr. Dinakar Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner impugns the letter dated 11.9.2012 issued by the respondent no.1 terminating the services of the petitioner. This letter reads as under:No.HR/PF/S-325/2012- 100907 To Mr. S.P. Sharma Vice President IFCI Ltd. IFCI Tower 61, Nehru Place New Delhi 110019 Subject: W.P.(C) No.97/2013 September 11, 2012 Termination Page 1 of 20 Owing to the lapses committed by you in the handling of the Jupiter Bioscience Ltd. case, the Competent Authority has decided to terminate your contract of employment with immediate effect. The payment of dues incl...
Mustafa @ Kala Baba Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-2013
$~R-32. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 172/2005 % Judgment dated 11.12.2013 MUSTAFA @ KALA BABA ..... Appellant Through : Mr.Adhirath Singh, Amicus Curiae versus STATE Through : ..... Respondent Mr.Feroz Khan Ghazi, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) 1. Present appeal has been filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 14.2.2004 and order on sentence dated 18.12.2004 passed by the trial court by which the appellant has been convicted under Sections 395/397 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for six months.2. The version of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial court, is as under:Prosecution case is that on 21.2.1992 on receipt of an information vide DD no.14 A from lady Ct. Kanta Lochan of PCR that a dacoity had been committed at house No.17 Babar Road and also on an information received from Smt.Sen by telephone No.3715876 ...
Colgate Palmolive Company and anr. Vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:10. 12.2013 FAO (OS) 396/2013 & CM No.13486/2013 COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY AND ANR. .....Appellants versus HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. .....Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellants : Mr C.M. Lall, Ms Nancy Roy and Ms Pragya Nalwa. For the Respondent : Mr Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Advocate with Mr Sameer Parekh, Ms Rukmini, Mr Shashank and Ms Sanjana. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 This is a composite appeal preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs challenging the order dated 27.08.2013 (hereinafter referred as the 'second impugned order') passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in an application filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC being I.A. No.13434/2013 which in turn was filed in CS(OS) No.1588/2013. The appellant also challenges the order dated 27.08.2013 rejecting the Review Petition, being R.P. No.424/2013 ...
Sushila Devi (Deceased) Through Lrs Vs. Adeline D. Lall (Deceased) Thr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:10. h December, 2013. + RFA6532004 SUSHILA DEVI (DECEASED) THROUGH LRs ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Arun Mohan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Arvind Bhat & Mr. Kuber Giri, Advs. Versus ADELINE D. LALL (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Pradeep Dewan, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Anupam Dhingra, Mr. Siko Sankar Mishra & Mr. Adbhut Pathak, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. The appeal impugns the judgment and decree (dated 16th September, 2004 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi in Suit No.107/2004 filed by the respondents) of specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 7th September, 1985 by the appellant of sale of House No.27, Road No.17, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, to the respondents/plaintiffs.2. The appeal was admitted for hearing and vide interim order dated 3 rd May, 2005, the direction in the impugned judgment for execution of the Sale Deed and the dis...
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. National Commission for Schedu ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.750/2013 & CM14522013 (Stay) 10th December,2013 % PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. ......Petitioner Through: Mr. H.M.Singh and Ms. Shabana, Advocates. VERSUS NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULE CASTES & ANR. ...... Respondents Through: Ms. Abha Malhotra, Adv. for R-1. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. On 4.10.2013, the following order was passed:Once again opportunity is sought on behalf of respondent no.1 to file counter-affidavit. Counsel for respondent no.1 states that in spite of communication she is not receiving any instruction from respondent no.1. Accordingly, as a last opportunity, counter-affidavit be now filed within a period of four weeks subject to payment of costs of Rs. 7500/- to the petitioner. Rejoinder-affidavit thereto be filed within a period of four weeks thereafter. In case, counter-affidavit is not filed within four weeks, the right ...
Thakur Balwan Singh Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:10. 12.2013 + WP(C) No.7755 of 2013 & CM No.16507 of 2013 THAKUR BALWAN SINGH Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. A.K. Singla, senior advocate with Mr. Rahul Shukla, Advs. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Mirza Amir Baig for Mr. Anjum Javed, Adv. for R-1 and 2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(Oral) The petitioner before this Court claims to have purchased the entire first floor of the property bearing number D-200, Defence Colony, New Delhi vide sale deed registered with the Office of Sub Registrar V on 16.2.2000. On the same date, another sale deed, for sale of the ground floor of the above referred property was also got registered with the same registering authority, which was executed in favour of respondent No.3.2. Certain disputes arose between the petitioner and the respondent no.3 on access to the common areas in the aforesaid building which led to the petitioner fil...
M/S Goel Trading Co and anr Vs. M/S Merific Sales and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-2013
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:10. h December, 2013 % + RFA5022013 M/S GOEL TRADING CO & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Mr. R.C. Gupta, Adv. versus M/S MERIFIC SALES & ANR Through: None. ..... Respondents CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J1 Notice of this appeal issued to the respondents remains unserved with the report of the respondents having left the address given.2. The counsel for the appellants states that the appellants are not aware of any other address of the respondents and the respondents were served with the summons of the suit also by publication at the said address and had failed to appear in the suit.3. On enquiry as to how the appellants will then recover the monies from the respondents, the counsel states that the appellants will continue to make enquiries of the whereabouts of the respondents.4. In the circumstances, need is not felt to complete the formality of ordering service of the respondents by publicati...
M/S K.G.Electronics Pvt. Ltd Vs. Dsiidc Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-2013
* % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:10. 12.2013 + WP(C) No.2324 of 2013 M/S K.G.ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. S.S. Jain and Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advs. versus DSIIDC LTD. Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Anusuya Salwan and Mr. Vikas Sood, Advs. for DSIDC CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(Oral) The petitioner before this Court, which is a private limited company, applied to the respondent DSIIDC for allotment of an industrial plot in Narela Industrial Complex under its Relocation Scheme. Vide letter dated 7.7.1990, plot no.A-102 at Narela Industrial Complex was allotted to the petitioner on provisional basis. The possession of the said plot was handed over to the petitioner on 17.5.1993 Vide letter dated 9.10.2006, the respondent DSIIDC sent lease papers in respect of the aforesaid plot to the petitioner. However, the lease deed of the aforesaid plot has not been executed so far in favour of the petitioner company. Being ag...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »