Delhi Court February 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.
Kalka Singh Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
$~6-28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON:28. 02.2013 + W.P.(C) 857/2013 RAMESH KUMAR versus ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents UOI AND ORS W.P.(C) 867/2013 SHRI SATYA NARAIN SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents W.P.(C) 6274/2012 RAJENDER SINGH versus ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents W.P.(C) 6969/2012, CM APPL.18089/2012 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS PRADEEP KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents W.P.(C) 6970/2012 GOURI SHANKAR SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents W.P. (C) 7584/2012 SUBHASH CHAND versus ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents UOI & ORS W.P.(C) 7585/2012 DEVIDAS BADGUJAR versus UOI & ORS WP (C) 368/2013 with connected matters ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents Page 1 W.P.(C) 315/2013 BIJENDRA KUMAR versus ..... Petitioner UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents W.P.(C) 361/2013 ..... Petitioner R.C.MANDI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents W.P.(C) ...
Rajender Singh Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
$~6-28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON:28. 02.2013 + W.P.(C) 857/2013 RAMESH KUMAR versus ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents UOI AND ORS W.P.(C) 867/2013 SHRI SATYA NARAIN SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents W.P.(C) 6274/2012 RAJENDER SINGH versus ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents W.P.(C) 6969/2012, CM APPL.18089/2012 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS PRADEEP KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents W.P.(C) 6970/2012 GOURI SHANKAR SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents W.P. (C) 7584/2012 SUBHASH CHAND versus ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents UOI & ORS W.P.(C) 7585/2012 DEVIDAS BADGUJAR versus UOI & ORS WP (C) 6274/2012 with connected matters ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents Page 1 W.P.(C) 315/2013 BIJENDRA KUMAR versus ..... Petitioner UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents W.P.(C) 361/2013 ..... Petitioner R.C.MANDI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents W.P.(C)...
Ramesh Kumar Patel Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
$~6-28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON:28. 02.2013 + W.P.(C) 857/2013 RAMESH KUMAR versus ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents UOI AND ORS W.P.(C) 867/2013 SHRI SATYA NARAIN SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents W.P.(C) 6274/2012 RAJENDER SINGH versus ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents W.P.(C) 6969/2012, CM APPL.18089/2012 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS PRADEEP KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents W.P.(C) 6970/2012 GOURI SHANKAR SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents W.P. (C) 7584/2012 SUBHASH CHAND versus ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents UOI & ORS W.P.(C) 7585/2012 DEVIDAS BADGUJAR versus UOI & ORS WP (C) 404/2013 with connected matters ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents Page 1 W.P.(C) 315/2013 BIJENDRA KUMAR versus ..... Petitioner UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents W.P.(C) 361/2013 ..... Petitioner R.C.MANDI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents W.P.(C) ...
Ramesh Singh Vs. Reserve Bank of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No. 18413/2006 % February 28, 2013 RAMESH SINGH Through: ..... Petitioner Ms. Rani Chhabra, Advocate. versus RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kuldeep S. Parihar, Advocate and Mr. H.S. Parihar, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms. Pragya Verma, Standing counsel for respondent No.3/UOI. 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 the petitioner claiming a direction against the respondent No.1/employer/Reserve Bank of India to permit the petitioner for appearing in the examination for Research Officers. The petitioner is presently working as a Coin-Note Examiner.2. It is undisputed that the qualifications which are required for appearing for the post of Research Officer are as under:(b) Educational Qualification (as on 01/02/2003): Essential: (i) Masters Degree in Stat...
M. Kurma Rao Vs. Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Per ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A): 1. The applicant successfully qualified for the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) on the basis of Civil Services Examination, 2010. He is aggrieved by allocation of Karnataka Cadre to him instead of his home cadre Andhra Pradesh and has sought the following relief:- (i) Issue appropriate direction to the respondents to allot ANDHRA PRADESH cadre to the applicant under O.B.C. insider quota. (ii) Pass any other orders as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including the costs of this original application. 2. Facts of the case are that the applicant appeared in the Civil Services Examination, 2010 held in October-November, 2010 as an OBC candidate and was successful. In the form filled for this purpose, he had marked preference for all the 24 cadres mentioned therein. His first preference was for IAS as his service and Andhra Pradesh as his cadre. His second preference was for Karnataka cadre. The applicant had claimed th...
M/S. Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Its Pr ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
Being aggrieved by communication dated 9.10.2012 issued by Respondent No. 1, refusing grant of permission for three (3) months time beyond 2.10.2011 for lifting and transportation of approximately 1.6 lakh tonnes of mined-out bauxite mineral, deposited near Kasarsada Bauxite Mine situated at Chandgad in Kolhapur district, this Appeal is filed. The Appellant challenges the said communication on various grounds. 2. The prayer made in the Appeal may be set- out for better understanding of the reliefs sought by the Appellant. In view of the above facts and circumstances it is most respectfully prayed that this Honble Tribunal may be pleased to: 1) Quash the impugned order dated 9.10.2012 passed by the Respondent No.1. 2) Direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to forward the proposal of the Appellant to the Central Government for grant of approval. 3. Some of the undisputed facts may be stated at the outset. The Appellant (M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd.) is a Public Limited Company incorporated under ...
Si Brij Mohan Vs. Govt. of Nctd Through the Commissioner of Police, Po ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2013
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A): 1. The applicant, who is a Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police, has sought the following relief:- (i) To quash and set aside the impugned order from Annexure A-1 to A-2 and to further direct the respondents that the forfeited years of service be restored as it was never forfeited and the applicant be exonerated of all the charges with all consequential benefits including seniority and promotion and pay and allowances. (ii) To set aside the Enquiry officer report. (iii) Any other relief which this Honble court deem fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant. 2. Facts of the case are that the applicant was proceeded against on the following charge:- It is alleged against SI Brij Mohan No. D-1239 that while pursuing the above said case, he made a request to the then DCP/N.W. Distt on 03/12/99 for issuance of priority letter from DCP/Crime and Railways for depositing of exhibits. A letter to this effect was sent by the then DCP/North West Distt to DCP/Crime ...
Kartar Singh Vs. Gnct of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: February 27, 2013 + WP(C) 2380/2003 KARTAR SINGH ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Anil Hooda and Mr.Prashant Kumar, Advocates. versus GNCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms.Megha Bharara, Advocate for Ms.Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he restricts submissions to the proportionality of the penalty.2. Serving as a Warder in Tihar Jail, at a departmental inquiry, the petitioner has been found guilty of trying to smuggle a bag containing 27 bundles of Newla Brand Tobacco containing 140 tobacco pouches. He has been dismissed from service as per order dated August 10, 1999. Departmental appeal was rejected on June 09, 2000. Challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal has failed.3. Relevant for the subject of proportionality would be two decisions d...
Manorama Sinha Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.1309/2013 % February 27, 2013 MANORAMA SINHA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Sanjay Jha with Mr. Sanjay Kr. Hadala, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS Through: ..... Respondents Mr. A.S.Singh, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM No.2489/2013(exemption) Allowed, subject to just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. WP(C) No.1309/2013 1. The present case, though on facts may be argued to be a sympathetic case, however, there has to be some end to litigation at some stage. Litigants do not have right to keep on approaching the Court repeatedly on the same issue, especially when an earlier litigation had reached the Supreme Court and was unsuccessful.2. The petitioner in the present case seeks compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment can only be as per an extant policy of the Union or the State or an instrumentality of the Union/State. As per th...
Dayanand Vs. Sunita and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:27. h February, 2013 + CM (M) 1120/2012 DAYANAND Through: Versus SUNITA & ORS. Through: ..... Petitioner Mr.Prasoon Kumar and Mr. Deepak Chander Pal, Advocates. ..... Respondents Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate. Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) + 1. CM (M) 1120/2012 The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 07.09.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal, whereby the application seeking review of the award dated 25.08.2008 has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal on account of inordinate delay.2. Against the above said award, the petitioner initially filed an appeal bearing MAC. Appeal No. 94/2009 before this Court, however, the same has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 09.02.2009 with liberty to file review application before the learned Tribunal.3. Accordingly, while dismissing the aforesaid appeal as withdrawn, liberty was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »