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.
Adidas India Marketing Private Ltd Vs. Hicare India Properties Pvt Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P. 147/2011 % Judgment dated 27.02.2013 ADIDAS INDIA MARKETING PRIVATE LTD ..... Petitioner Through : Mr.Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Vijay Srivastava, Adv. versus HICARE INDIA PROPERTIES PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Arun Kathpalia, Mr.Santosh Kumar, Mr.Shoeb Alam and Mr.Vaibhav Choudhary, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI 1 Present objection petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for setting aside the Award dated 10.12.2010 passed by a former Judge of this Court. The impugned award was rendered by the learned Arbitrator on a claim filed by the respondent/claimant against the petitioner company for alleged breach of Agreement to Lease dated 02.08.2007.2. The facts, necessary to be noticed for disposal of the present petition, are that on 02.08.2007 an Agreement to Lease was executed between one Uppal Housing Limited and the petitioner company with respe...
Mt Varghese Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 877/2011 MT VARGHESE ..... Appellant Through: Mr Jos Chiramel, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Counsel for the respondent CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN ORDER % 27.02.2013 Vide letter dated 20.05.1981, the appellant was offered employment with respondent No. 2 Mazagon Dock Limited (MDL) as a Draftsman, on the terms and conditions stipulated in the said letter and he was asked to confirm in writing, in case the said terms were acceptable to him. The appellant accepted the terms stipulated in the said letter and joined the employment of respondent No.2. Vide letter dated 27.07.1984, the appellant was taken into regular employment as a Draftsman and put on probation, on the terms and conditions, stipulated in the said letter. The LPA 877/2011 page 1 of 8 services of the appellant were confirmed vide letter dated 29.04.1989. In the meantime, vide representation dated 25.05.1987, made...
Union of India and ors. Vs. Malhotra Book Depot
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:27. h February, 2013 % + LPA 564/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: ..... Appellants Mr. Sachin Datta, CGSC with Ms. Ritika Jhurani, Adv. versus MALHOTRA BOOK DEPOT Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Gaurav Pachnanda, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Sangeeta Goel, Mr. Mohit Goel, Mr. Sidhant Goel & Mr. Rahul, Advs. CORAM :HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J 1.This intra-court appeal impugns the judgment dated 29th November, 2011 of the Single Judge of this Court allowing W.P.(C) No.7882/2010 preferred by the respondent by directing the restoration and renewal of the Trademark of the respondent. Notice of this appeal and of the application for condonation of delay of 224 days in filing the appeal was issued. Though the respondent has filed a reply opposing condonation of delay but considering the fact that the question raised is of interpretation of statutory provisions and likely to have widespread...
Sh. Dilip Singh 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.1026/1997 % February 27, 2013 SH. DILIP SINGH Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Abhay Singh, Advocate with Ms. Yasmin Zafar, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Alakh Kumar, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 28.5.1996 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from services.2. Before me, the only point which is urged on behalf of the petitioner is that after the report of the enquiry officer was received, and which exonerated the petitioner on some charges, the disciplinary authority upset the findings of the enquiry officer by holding the petitioner guilty without giving a hearing to the petitioner. The disciplinary authority on disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer imposed a penalty of dismissal from services on the petitioner. It is...
The Director of Income Tax (international Taxation Vs. Goodyear Tire a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:27. 02.2013 W.P.(C) 8295/2011 THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DELHI Petitioner versus GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner For the Respondent : Mr Abhishek Maratha, Ms Anshul Sharma : Mr Percy J.Paradiwalla, Sr. Adv. with Mr H.R. Rao, Mr Mukesh Bhutani, Mr Rahul Yadav, Advs. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition has been filed by the department against the advance ruling order dated 02.05.2011 given by the Authority for Advance Rulings (A.A.R). The crux of the matter is that 74% shares of Goodyear India Limited were held by a USA company by the name of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. The said USA company has a 100% subsidiary in Singapore by the name of Goodyear Orient Company (Pte) Limited. Both the USA company as well as the Singapore company ...
Rajiv Mahendru and anr. Vs. Chairman-md, I.R.C.C., New Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.895/1997 % February 27, 2013 RAJIV MAHENDRU & ANR. .... Petitioners Through: Petitioner no.2 in person. versus CHAIRMAN-MD, I.R.C.C., NEW DELHI & ANR. .... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjiv K. Jha, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE 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 two petitioners who seek the relief of promotion to the post of Deputy Manager in the respondent No.1/Corporation namely Indian Road Construction Corporation Ltd. The claim of the petitioners to promotion is on the ground that on completion of period of service of five years in the feeder cadre, the petitioners had become entitled to promotion, and though the petitioners have completed eleven years they have been stagnating in their present grade of Section Officers. It is pleaded in the writ petition that there is discrimination against the petitioners because a junior to the petitioners, one Sh....
Meena Tejrana Vs. Suresh Kumar Jindal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
F-21 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1516/2012 MEENA TEJRANA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. R.K. Alagh, Advocate with Mr. Praveen Kumar Bhatnagar, Advocate. versus SURESH KUMAR JINDAL AND ANR. Through: None. ..... Defendants Date of Decision:27. h February, 2013 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J (ORAL) 1. Present suit has been filed for Specific Performance of contract and permanent injunction. The prayer clause in the suit is reproduced hereinbelow:(i) Pass a Decree of specific performance of contract with directions to the defendants to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of suit property bearing No.4-A, Situated at Village Khureji Khas in the Abadi of Shiv Puri Extension Delhi-110051 and to hand over the possession of the said property to the plaintiff, which is specifically shown in the enclosed site plan. (ii) Pass a decree of permanent injunction thereby permanently restraining the defendants, their associates, heir...
Bachita Baruah Vs. Govt of Nct of Delhi and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 1303/2013 BACHITA BARUAH ..... Petitioner Through:Mr.Rahul Shukla, Advocate Versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Through:Mr.Nitin Saluja for Mr.Najmi Waziri, Standing Counsel, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN % 1. ORDER 27 02.2013 To streamline the procedure adopted by Registering Officials while discharging their duties, Inspector General of Registration issued executive instructions dated 13.8.1976. Instructions No.34 and 42 of the aforesaid instructions reads as under:34. Parties entitled to present for registration: If the document is not open to any of the objections setforth in paragraph 29, the registering officer, before finally accepting it for registration, shall W.P.(C) 1303/2013 page 1 of 10 a) b) c) d) e) satisfy himself that the person presenting it has legal authority to do so. The persons who may present a document for registration are the followingIn ...
Divya Oram Kujur Vs. State and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
$~5 & 7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 193/2012 DIVYA ORAM KUJUR Through: ..... Petitioner Ms.Protima Parihar, Advocate versus STATE & ANR Through: + ..... Respondent Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State Mr.K.K.Malhotra, Advocate for R-2 CRL.REV.P. 379/2012 STATE ..... Petitioner Through: Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State versus AVINASH ORAM KUJUR Through: ..... Respondent Mr.K.K.Malhotra, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL ORDER % 27.02.2013 1. As per the allegations made by the prosecution, the Petitioner Divya Oram Kujur and the Respondent (Accused) Avnish Oram Kujur hailed from the State of Orissa.2. The Respondent (Accused) made the Petitioner to believe that he was not married and that he had a liking for her. In the year 2005, the Respondent (Accused) solemnized marriage with the Petitioner. After the marriage, the Petitioner had sexual relations with the Respondent.3. According to the Petitioner, even in July, 2010 she (the Petitioner) pr...
Miss Uma Pawar and anr. Vs. Mr. NizamuddIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:27. h February, 2013 + CRL. RP.79/2006 MISS UMA PAWAR & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. V.P. Katiyar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Shamim Mohd., Adv. Mr. Neeraj Pandey, Adv. versus MR. NIZAMUDDIN & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rohit, Adv. for R-1,2 & 4. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. for R-3. Mr. Sunil Ahuja, Adv. with Mr. Kanishk Ahuja, Adv. for R-5 & R-6. SI Yogesh Kumar, PS Timarpur. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. The Petitioners who are the private Complainants (and victim of sexual assault) prefer this Revision Petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and impugn the order dated 04.10.2005 and order on sentence dated 05.10.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) whereby Respondents were acquitted of the charges under Sections 363/366/376/376(g)/305/368/109/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were convict...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »