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.
Mrs. R.S. Khan Vs. Union of India Through Secretary and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2013
G. George Paracken, Member (J): 1. The Applicant, Mrs.R.S.Khan in this Original Application is an officer belonging to the 1972 batch of the Indian Defence Accounts Service (IDAC - for short). Her grievance is against the impugned Presidential Order No.AN/I/1382/6/RSK-III dated 28.10.2009 imposing upon her the penalty of Censure. 2. Facts as stated by the Applicant are that she applied for sanction of leave to visit U.K. for treatment of her mother. However, vide letter dated 17.09.2001, the Respondents rejected her request. Same day itself she made another representation to the CGDA stating that it was a pity that her application for grant of leave was refused. She has also pointed out in her letter that for the last 4 years after January-February, 1998, she never availed herself of any long leave. Therefore, she again requested to grant her a months leave for treatment of her old widowed mother and for arranging the marriage of her 26 years old daughter. She also did not forget to re...
Devendra Kumar Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of En ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2013
Swatanter Kumar, (Chairperson) 1. The applicant in application no. 91 of 2012, who claims to have great concern for the ecology of the Aravalli Hill Range, has moved the present application alleging that there is gross violation of the provisions of Environment [Protection] Act, 1986 (for short the Act) and the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (for short the Forest Act). Rule 5 of the Environment [Protection] Rules, 1986 (for short the Rules) provides for restrictions and conditions that may be imposed. The Ministry of Environment and Forests (for short the MoEF) had issued a Notification dated 7th May, 1992 (for short the Notification) which imposed prohibition on carrying out certain activities in the Aravalli Hills in District Gurgaon, which were causing environmental degradation. According to the applicant, large numbers of persons are carrying on commercial and other activities in violation of the said Notification. By indulging in such activities they are not only violating the law ...
Save Mon Region Federation Through Its General Secretary, Lobsang Gyat ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2013
Swatanter Kumar, (Chairperson)1. The Ministry of Environment and Forests (for short MoEF) accorded clearance for construction of 780 Mega Watts Naymjang Chhu Hydroelectric Project in Tawang district of Arunachal Pradesh. The applicant is an organization based in Tawang, consisting of citizens of Monpa indigenous community who advocate environmentally and culturally sensitive development in the ecologically and geologically fragile, seismically active and culturally sensitive Mon-Tawang region of the State. The applicant being aggrieved from the order dated 19th April, 2012 has preferred an appeal questioning the legality and correctness of the said order. 2. The appeal apparently and admittedly has been filed beyond 30 days from the date of communication of the order to the appellant. The appeal being barred by time, is accompanied by an application (MA No. 104 of 2012) praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In view of the objections raised with regard to the maintainab...
Pankaj Kumar Jha Vs. the Chief of the Army Staff and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2013
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on :13. h March, 2013 % + W.P.(C) 1411/2013 PANKAJ KUMAR JHA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. V.S. Tomar, Advocate versus THE CHIEF OF THE ARMY STAFF AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate with Mr. M.P. Sharma, OIC Legal Cell CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. In this proceeding, a direction is sought to the respondents to accept the petitioners application dated 17.09.2012 by which he had sought for a UN Mission assignment. The petitioners application was rejected on 8.10.2012. The reason cited by the respondents was that he was a recipient of the punishment awarded under Section 46(b) of the Army Act in respect of an incident which occurred on 13.12.2005.2. The writ petitioner avers and his counsel contends that the punishment in question was originally sought to be awarded on 24.12.2005 under Section 46(b) of the Army Act....
Dinesh Uniyal Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2013
$-15 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP(C) No.8439/2011 Date of decision :13. h March, 2013 % DINESH UNIYAL Through : ..... PETITIONER Mr. Ravi Prakash and Ms. Avni Singh, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER ..... RESPONDENTS Through : Mr. Saqib, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA GITA MITTAL, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioner in the instant case assails the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him pursuant to a chargesheet dated 18th May, 2007; the disagreement note dated 2nd March, 2009 issued by the disciplinary authority; the advice of the UPSC dated 31st March, 2010 and a final order dated 21st May, 2010 issued by the disciplinary authority holding against the petitioner and imposing the penalty of withholding of one increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect as well as the order dated 9 th June, 2011 rejecting the petitioners statutory memorandum.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are within a na...
Zafar Umar Khan @ Jafar Umar Vs. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1143/2011 % Reserved on: Date of Decision:6. h February13. h March, 2013 ZAFAR UMAR KHAN @ JAFAR UMAR ....Appellant Through Mr. Zafar Sadique & Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Advocates. Versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) Respondent Through Mr. Sidharth Luthra, ASG with Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel, Mr. Tarunveer Singh, Mr. Yashpreet Singh & Mr. Shiv Pande, Advocates along with ASI Heera Lal. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL SANJIV KHANNA, J.: The appellant Zafar Umar Khan @ Jafar Umar by the impugned judgment dated 4th January, 2011 has been convicted for offences under Section 22(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as, POTA) and Section 25 of the Arms Act (hereinafter referred to as, the Act). By order of sentence dated 10th January, 2011 under Section 22(2) POTA the appellant has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 14 years...
Star India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Piyush Agarwal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2013
-* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:13. 03.2013 + CS (OS) No. 2722/2012 CS (OS) No. 3232/2012 CS (OS) No. 2780/2012 1. CS (OS) No. 2722/2012 & IA 16485/2012, 19780/2012 & 2846/2013. STAR INDIA PVT. LTD. Through: ....Plaintiff Mr. Parag Tripathi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, Mr. Sidharth Chopra, Ms. Sneha Jain, Advocates. Versus ...Defendant PIYUSH AGARWAL & ORS. Through: Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Gayatri Roy, Mr. Thomas George, Mr. Udit Sood, Advs. For D1 & D2. Mr.Amit Ms.Radha CS (OS) Nos. 2722/2012, 3232/2012 and 2780/2012 Sibal, Adv. with Rangaswamy, Page 1 of 39 Mr.Prateek Chadha, Mr.Raman Kumar, Advocates for D3/BCCI.2. CS (OS) No. 3232/2012 & IA 20275-78/2012 & IA 506/2013 ....Plaintiff STAR INDIA PVT. LTD. Through: Mr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, Mr. Sidharth Chopra, Ms. Sneha Jain, Advocates. Versus ...Respondent IDEA CELLULAR & ANR. Through: Mr.Rajiv Nayyar, Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Advs. with Mr...
M/S 3rd Dimension Architecture Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:13. h March, 2013 + CRL.M.C. 198/2012 M/S 3rd DIMENSION ARCHITECTURE PVT. LTD. Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Rajesh Manchanda with Mr. Rajat Manchanda, Advocates versus THE STATE & ANR Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. The Petitioner invokes the inherent powers of this Court for setting aside a judgment dated 13.02.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge(ASJ) whereby the order dated 08.11.2006, dismissing the complaint in default which had the effect of acquitting the Petitioner, was set aside.2. The only ground of challenge raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that as per Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code) the order of dismissal in default was to have an effect of acquittal of the accused. It is urged that the learned ASJ was not entitled to entertain Appeal against acquittal by a Priva...
Harjinder Pal Singh Vs. Ravinder Singh Anand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2013
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:13. h March, 2013 % + CS(OS) No.2537/2010 HARJINDER PAL SINGH Through: ..... Mr. Rajat Aneja, Adv. Plaintiff Versus RAVINDER SINGH ANAND ..... Defendant Through: Mr. B.S. Randhawa, Adv. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J IA No.18966/2011 (of the defendant u/O 3.Rule 4 CPC), IA No.9638/2012 (of the plaintiff u/O 3.R-1&2 CPC) & IA No.21440/2012 (for stay of decree) 1. The plaintiff had instituted this suit under Order 37 of the CPC for recovery of Rs.55,20,000/- on the basis of two dishonoured cheques of Rs.27,00,000/- each. It was the case of the plaintiff in the plaint (i) that the defendant had agreed to sell his undivided one-half share of private flat not G-1, measuring 3000 sq. ft. super area, built on the Ground Floor with Basement (towards property not F-11) in the built up property not F-10, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi to the plaintiff vide Agreement to Sell dated 19.03.2009 for a sale consid...
Ex. Spr. Anil Kumar Rawat Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:13. 03.2013 + W.P.(C) 1632/2013 EX. SPR ANIL KUMAR RAWAT ..... Petitioner Through Mr. S.S. Pandey, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr. Ankur Chibber, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. The Petitioner seeks a direction to quash the order of the Armed Forces Appellate Tribunal dated 12.9.2012 dismissing his original application as well as the order made in the review proceeding on 30.1.2013.2. The Petitioners case in brief is that he was recruited by the Indian Army on 1.6.1990 in the Engineers Regiment. It is stated that during the period 1991-1996 he served with 67 Engineers Bridge Regiment. During this period it is alleged that on account of domestic problems he lost his mental balance and earned three red ink entry punishments under Section 39(a) of the Army Act. In this background on 10.12.1998 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »