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.
Prem Lata Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: March 15, 2013 + CRL.M.C.76/2012 PREM LATA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Avadh Kaushik, Advocate. versus STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Rikesh Singh and Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocates for R-2 & R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRATIBHA RANI, J (Oral) 1. The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for setting aside the judgment passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Crl. Revision Petition No.122/2011 as well as order of acquittal passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 23.07.2011.2. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents who entered appearance through their counsel.3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perusal of the record shows that vide proceedings dated 23.07.2011, the learned M.M noticing the conduct of the petitioner, who is complainant in CC No.230/P/05, closed the post summoning evidence to ...
The Municipal Corp. of Delhi Vs. Additional Commissioner
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2013
$~8 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LPA 158/2013 THE MUNICIPAL CORP. OF DELHI .... Appellant Through : Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, Adv. Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER Through : None ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN ORDER % 15.03.2013 CM 4443/2013 (condonation of delay of 163 days in filing) & CM 4444/2013 (condonation of delay of 1020 days in re-filing) LPA 158/2013 has been filed by the MCD challenging the order dated 9.11.2009 passed in W.P(C) No.6912/2007 alongwith CM 13102/2007. There is a delay of 163 days in filing and 1020 days delay in re-filing the appeal. The following are the reasons given for the delay in filing the appeal: (a) That the judgment was pronounced on 9th November, 2009. Its certified copy was applied on 12.11.2009, but the same was delivered only on 25.11.09. LPA 158/2013 page 1 of 12 (b) That, moreover, in this case Directions were issued for complying with the order dated 9th February, 2007 of the First Re...
Dharmendra Kr. Lila Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:5. h March, 2013 Pronounced on:15. h March, 2013 + Crl. M.C.6287/2006 DHARMENDRA KR. LILA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr.Sanjeev Sachdeva, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kaustabh Shukla & Ms. Swati Pant, Advocates Versus REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Baldev Malik with Mr. Arjun Malik, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.1. The present Petition is dismissed in terms of the judgment passed today in Crl.M.C.6260/2006 titled KRISHNA KUMAR. v. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES.2. For detailed order, please see the above mentioned judgment. (G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MARCH 15 2013 pst...
Jai Bhagwan Vs. the Asstt. General Manager
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LPA 159/2013 JAI BHAGWAN ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Atul T. N, Adv. versus THE ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Rajiv Kapur and Ms. Vatsala Rai, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN ORDER % 15.03.2013 CM No.4474/2012 (exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. CM No.4475/2012 (delay) The delay of 19 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. LPA 159/2013 The appellant claims to have been appointed and worked as a Messenger with State Bank of India, Kishan Garh Branch continuously from 8.9.1993 to 6.11.1995. Since the services of the appellant were terminated by the Management on 7.11.1995, an industrial dispute was raised by him. On the said dispute being referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, an order was passed on 10.4.2008 holding that since the appellant had not worked for 240 days i...
Reckitt Benkiser India Ltd Vs. Wyeth Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) 458/2009 % Reserved on:11. h January, 2013 Pronounced on:15. h March, 2013 RECKITT BENKISER INDIA LTD Through: ...... Appellant Mr. Aman Lekhi, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shikha Sachdev, Advocate. Versus WYETH LTD. Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Pravin Anand, Advocate with Mr. Vaishali Mittal, Advocate and Ms. Abhilasha Nautiyal, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. GARG To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J 1.Reference has been made to this Full Bench, by a Division Bench of this court, vide the reference order dated 8.10.2010 in this FAO(OS), for this larger Bench to consider as to whether a Division Bench of this court in the case of Dabur India Ltd. Vs. Amit Jain & Anr. 2009 (39) PTC 10.(Del) (DB) has correctly held that publication abroad by existence of the design in the records of the Registrar of designs which is open for public inspection...
Subhash Chandra Gupta Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:5. h March, 2013 Pronounced on:15. h March, 2013 + Crl. M.C.6273/2006 SUBHASH CHANDRA GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sachdeva, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kaustabh Shukla & Ms. Swati Pant, Advocates Versus REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Baldev Malik with Mr. Arjun Malik, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.1. The present Petition is dismissed in terms of the judgment passed today in Crl.M.C.6260/2006 titled KRISHNA KUMAR. v. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES.2. For detailed order, please see the above mentioned judgment. (G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MARCH pst 15, 2013...
Sahil Bansal Vs. Vasudha
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2013
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Matrimonial Appeal No.4 of 2013 Decided on :15. h March, 2013 SAHIL BANSAL Through: Appellant Mr. Alok Kumar & Neeraj Gupta, Advocates. Versus VASUDHA Through: Respondent Ms. Manali Singhal, Ms. Monika Singhal and Mr. Prakhar Nishant, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) 1. This is an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the judgment dated 21.1.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (West) by virtue of which the petition filed by the appellant herein under Section 12 (1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short the Act) for annulment of marriage on the ground of non-consummation of marriage was dismissed.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant filed a petition bearing No.535/2012 stating that he got married to the respondent on 16.7.2011 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and the marriage was thereafter registere...
Gupta and Gupta and anr. Vs. Comptroller and Auditor General of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2013
$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1345/2011 GUPTA AND GUPTA AND ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Sumit Thakur, Advocate. versus COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mrs. Biji Rajesh and Mr. Gaurav Kanth, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER % 1. ORDER 14 03.2013 In this writ petition, the main grievance of the petitioners appears to be that they were appointed as joint statutory auditors of Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited (in short AICIL) for the financial years 2009-2010 and that mandate ought to have continued for the next four (4) years in the ordinary course. 1.1 It may be stated, at the very outset, that it is not disputed before me that, had the mandate to audit AICIL continued, it would have come to an end in March, 2013.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the petitioners engagement with AICIL was abruptly brought to an end after the first financial year, i.e. 2009-2010 whereas it ought...
B.S.E.S.Rajdhani Power Ltd. and anr Vs. Kolmet Builders
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 1391/2007 B.S.E.S.RAJDHANI POWER LTD. & ANR. ..... Appellants versus KOLMET BUILDERS + ..... Respondent LPA 200/2008 BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD. ..... Appellant versus RAVEEN JAIN & ANR Present : ..... Respondents Mr. Anupam Varma, Adv. for the appellants. Mr. Laliet Kumar and Mr. Mohit Bhardwaj, Advs. for the respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN % ORDER 14 03.2013 Both these appeals are directed against a common judgment dated 05.10.2007, whereby WP(C) No. 17774/2004 filed by Kolmet Builders and WP(C) No. 13889-90/2004 filed by Raveen Jain and another were allowed.2. In the matter of Raveen Jain, one electricity connection was obtained by Raveen Jain in respect of property bearing No. 297, Patparganj, Industrial Area, Delhi, whereas the other connection was obtained by Suneer Jain in respect of property bearing No. 298, Patparganj, Industrial Area, Delhi. Separate bills were being issued by the appell...
Ravinder Kaur Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3237/2012 14th March, 2013 % RAVINDER KAUR ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Naresh Thanai, Adv. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondent Through : Mr. D. Rajeshwar Rao, Adv. 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 who is working with respondent No. 2 and is employed by respondent No.1. The petitioner claims reimbursement of medical expenses incurred of Rs.33,369.80 on account of the medical ailment suffered on 09.08.2011.2. On behalf of both the parties, it is said to be an undisputed position that the petitioner was not treated for the ailment in any of the hospitals which is on the approved list. That being so, it is agreed that the Circular dated 02.02.2010, issued by respondent No. 1 will apply.3. Counsel for the petitioner states that the case of the petitioner is covered under para 3(II)(a) of the Circul...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »