Delhi Court March 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.
Sugen Inc. and ors. Vs. A. Rao and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-2013
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:19. h March, 2013 % + IA No.11625/2012 (of the plaintiffs u/O 3.R-1&2 CPC) & IA No.17014/2012 & IA.No. 18679/2012 (both of the defendants u/O 3.R-4 CPC) in CS(OS) No.1866/2012 and Counter Claim 25/2013 SUGEN INC. & ORS. Through: ..... Plaintiffs Mr. C.R. Andhyarujina & Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Soumik Ghosal & Mr. Aditya Gupta, Advs. versus A. RAO & ANR. Through: ..... Defendants Mr. C. Mukund with Ms. Firdouse Wani, Ms. Ekta Bhasin & Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advs. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J 1.The three plaintiffs viz. Sugen Inc., Pfizer Inc & Pfizer Products India Pvt. Ltd. have instituted this suit against the two defendants i.e. defendant No.2 NATCO Pharma Ltd. and its President (Research & Development) & Additional Director Mr. A. Rao, for injunction from making, selling, distributing, advertising, exporting any product infringing the subject matter of Indian Patent N...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Asha Kaul and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-2013
$~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:19th March, 2013 % + MAC.APP. 363/2010 & CM No. 10821/2010 (for stay) NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Ms.Manjusha Wadhwa, Advocate. Versus ASHA KAUL & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Sarfaraz Khan, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 with Respondent No.1 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) MAC.APP. 363/2010 1. Vide the instant appeal, the appellant/Insurance Company has challenged the impugned award dated 12.03.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal.2. The main ground taken in this appeal is that on 30.10.2007, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:1. Whether deceased Badrinarayan received fatal injuries on 11.02.2000 on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle not DL-8C-5961 on the part of R1, vehicle owned by R2 and insured by R3?.....OPP 2.3. 3. If issue no. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioner is entitled for any comp...
Shailesh Kumar Verma Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-2013
$~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on :19. h March, 2013. + W.P.(C) 1786/2013 SHAILESH KUMAR VERMA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr. Ravinder Aggarwal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(OPEN COURT) CM No.3401/2013 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 1786/2013 1. Issue notice.2. Mr. Ravinder Aggarwal, Advocate, accepts notice and states that the petition may be heard and disposed off finally.3. Brief facts are that the writ petitioner participated in a selection process for the recruitment of Constables (GD) in the Border Security Force (BSF) conducted by the second respondent/SSC. The petitioner secured 54 marks but was denied a place in the list of selected candidates on the ground that he belonged to a medical category lower than what was prescribed. The petitioners application f...
Satyendra JaIn Vs. M/S Omway Buildestate Pvt. Ltd. and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-2013
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:19. h March, 2013 % + CS(OS) 47/2011 SATYENDRA JAIN Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. Sanjeev Puri, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Sarin, Mr. Tarun Rana & Ms. Gagan Deep Kaur, Advs. versus M/S OMWAY BUILDESTATE PVT. LTD. & ORS.... Defendants Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Kunal Sinha, Adv. AND + CS(OS) 48/2011 RAVI SHARMA Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. Sanjeev Puri, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Sarin, Mr. Tarun Rana & Ms. Gagan Deep Kaur, Advs. versus M/S OMWAY BUILDESTATE PVT. LTD. & ORS.... Defendants Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Kunal Sinha, Adv. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J IA No.17660/2011 [u/O 3.R-3(5)] in CS(OS) No.47/2011 and IA No.17661/2011 [u/O 3.R-3(5)] in CS(OS) No.48/2011 (both for grant of leave to defend) 1. Applications for leave to defend the two suits under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for recovery of Rs.5,75,17,240/- and Rs.9,94,14,041/- with i...
Staff Selection Commission Through Its Chairman Vs. Mahesh Kumar
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-2013
G. George Paracken: 1. MA No. 1190/2012 in RA No. 139/2012 in OA No. 2364/2010 This MA has been filed by the Respondent, i.e., Staff Selection Commission in OA No.2364/2010 seeking condonation of delay in filing RA No. 139/2012 in the said OA. According to them, there is some delay in filing the Review Application. However, the same is neither deliberate nor intentional one but only due to administrative reasons. They have, therefore, submitted that it was just and proper for this Tribunal to condone the delay in filing the Review Application. RA No. 139/2012 in OA No. 2364/2010 2. This Review Application has been filed by the Respondents in OA 2364/2010 which was disposed of vide order dated 1.02.2012. The operative part of the said order reads as under:- 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We have also gone through the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (supra) and the Order of a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA...
Dr. Sadhna Rai and Others Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-2013
G. George Paracken: 1. MA No.370/2012 in RA No.42/2012 in OA 3080/2010 This MA has been filed by the Applicants in OA No.3080/2010 seeking condonation of delay in filing RA No. 42/2012 in the said OA. According to them, they came to know about the order passed in OA on 29.11.2011 only in the 2nd week of December, 2011. Immediately after getting copy of the aforesaid order, they approached their counsel for further course of action and only in the Ist week of January, 2012, they came to know about the correct rule position about their entitlement for claiming first and second financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP Scheme for short). As their counsel was not paying any heed to their request, they collected the paper book and approached another counsel for processing their case as per the rule position and the latest law on the subject. As such, there is no unintentional delay on their part and delay which has occurred may, therefore, be condoned. They have...
Govt. of India and ors. Vs. Capt. (Retd.) Kapil Chaudhary
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
$~9&10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: March 18, 2013 + WP(C) 2331/2012 GOVT. OF INDIA & ORS. Represented by: .... Petitioners Dr.Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate. versus CAPT. (RETD.) KAPIL CHAUDHARY ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Ms.Amita Kalkal Chaudhary and Ms.Aditi Gupta, Advocates. WP(C) 6701/2012 CAPT. (RETD.) KAPIL CHAUDHARY ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Ms.Amita Kalkal Chaudhary and Ms.Aditi Gupta, Advocates. versus GOVT. OF INDIA & ORS. Represented by: .... Respondents Mr.Himanshu Bajaj, Advocate for R-1 and R-2. Dr.Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. We are concerned in the two writ petitions with the interpretation of para 8 of the CCS (Fixation of Pay of re-employed Pensioners) Order 1986, which reads as under:8. Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service Commissioned Officers. Emergency Comm...
Karamvir Singh Nagar and anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on :12. 03.2013 Judgment pronounced on :18. 03.2013 CONT. CAS.(C) No.820/2012 ANJUMAN-E-HAIDER (REGD.) ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Tasneem Ahmadi along with Mr. N.R. Thakur, Advs. VERSUS CHAIRMAN NDMC, ARCHNA ARORA AND ORS...... Respondents Through: + Mr. Rohan Tahwani, Adv. for respondent. Mr. Mehmood Pracha along with Ms. Sneha Singh, Advs. for Waqf Board. Ms. Madhu Tewatia, Adv. for NDMC. Mr. Ishwar Singh, SHO, Lodhi Road; SI Sanjiv Mahana, P.S. Lodhi Road. Mr. Pankaj Batra, Adv. for Delhi Police. Mr. Rajiv Bansal along with Mr. Devvrat Singh Raghav and Mr. Rahul Bhandari, Advs. for DDA. W.P.(C) No.646/2012 KARAMVIR SINGH NAGAR AND ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Vishesh Issar, Adv. VERSUS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS...... Respondents Through: Ms. Tasneem Ahmedi, Adv. for R6. Mr. Rohan Tahwani, Adv. for respondent. Mr. Mehmood Pracha along with Ms. Sneha Singh, Advs. for Waqf Board. Ms. Madhu Tewatia, Adv....
Jsw Ispat Steel Limited Vs. Ariba India Private Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : February 28, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on : March 18 , 2013 + FAO(OS) 517/2012 JSW ISPAT STEEL LIMITED ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Parag P.Tripathi, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Gaurav Bahl, Mr.Ankur Khandelwal, Ms.Mahima, Advocates. versus ARIBA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Mukul Talwar, Advocate with Mr.Sradhananda Mohapatra, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. The respondent, earlier known as Free Markets Service Pvt. Ltd. now known as Ariba India Pvt. Ltd. was engaged in the business of providing e-sourcing software and services. The appellant, JSW ISPAT Steel Ltd. was engaged in the business of manufacture of steel.2. The two entered into an Access and Services Agreement on May 01, 2003, wherein the appellant agreed to purchase access to the Full Source Product Offering of the respondent. The duration of ...
Rakesh Pandita Vs. Lic and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 7287/2010 & CM No.14425/2010 (Stay) % 18th March, 2013 RAKESH PANDITA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashok Mathur, Adv. versus LIC & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sudeep Singh, 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. The only ground urged in this writ petition for setting aside of the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner is the ground of delay. What is urged by the petitioner is that petitioner had applied for VRS vide letter dated 20.10.2006, and after the expiry of the period specified in the application, it is averred on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is deemed to have got voluntary retirement. It is argued that departmental proceedings thus could not be initiated after about three years of deemed acceptance.2. On behalf of the respondent no.1, it is pleaded that there cannot be automatic voluntary retirement a...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »