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.
iqbal Singh Vs. Dhanwant Singh and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-2013
$~34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:12th March, 2013 % + CM(M) No. 279/2013 IQBAL SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.B.K.Srivastava, Advocate. Versus DHANWANT SINGH & ORS Through: ..... Respondents None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) CM No. 4163/2013 (for exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. CM(M) No. 279/2013 1. Vide this petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 02.11.2012, whereby an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC to implead Shri Sarvesh Pal, the subsequent purchaser of the vehicle bearing No. DL-1W-0048 from the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the said Sarvesh Pal filed an affidavit at the time of taking the vehicle on superdari, wherein he stated that he purchased an auto bearing No. DL-1W0048 from Iqbal Singh/petitioner, which was ma...
Uoi Vs. Rk Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : March 12, 2013 + W.P.(C) 2525/2011 UOI Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. versus RK SINGH Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Rahul Singh, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The respondent sought voluntary retirement from service on September 24, 2009, which request was accepted on October 26, 2009; resulting in respondent being voluntarily retired from service with effect from the afternoon of October 31, 2009.3. In what circumstances such request seeking voluntary retirement was accepted need not be commented upon by us for the reason we note that the respondent was a senior IPS officer and at the relevant time, the matter was being processed in the department to initiate departmental proceedings against him for a major penalty.4. It is but apparent that the respondent had...
Rakesh Kumar Yadav Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: February 21, 2013 Pronounced on: March 12, 2013 + CRL.REV.P. 316/2006 RAKESH KUMAR YADAV ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Arjun Harkauli & Mr. A.S. Rathore, Advocates versus GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT 1 In this revision petition, legality of impugned order of 7th April, 2006 upholding petitioners conviction for the offences under Sections 304A/338/279 of I.P.C. as well as substantive sentence of a term upto one year rigorous imprisonment is questioned.2. The facts of this case, as noted in the opening paragraphs of the impugned order, are as under: Denuded of details, the facts are that on 05.04.2000, at about 8am, at flyover G.T. Road, Shahdara, opposite street No.8, Friends Colony, Delhi, Rakesh Kumar Yadav was driving tempo not DBL 408.in rash or negligent manner, while Vikram and Ramesh Chand wer...
Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd. Vs. B.K. Modi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: February 26, 2013 Judgment delivered on: March 12, 2013 E.A.(OS) No.818/2012 in Ex.P.No.112/2010 + MORGAN SECURITIES & CREDITS PVT. LTD. Through ..... Decree Holder Mr.P.S. Bindra, Adv. with Ms.Inklee Roy Barooah, Adv. versus B.K. MODI Through ..... Judgment Debtor Mr.Srinivasan Ganesh, Sr. Adv. and Mr.Harish Malhotra, Sr. Adv. with Ms.Shweta Bharti, Mr.Vineet Dwivedi, Ms.Neha Kapoor and Mr.Vikram Hazarika, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. By this order I propose to decide E.A.(OS)No.818/2012 filed by Dr.B.K. Modi, judgment debtor, who has sought permission to withdraw the undertaking given on 28th April, 2010 regarding creating any third party interest in his assets and has also sought de-attachment of properties bearing No.1, Prithviraj Road Property, New Delhi, and 36, Amrita Shergil Marg, New Delhi.2. The main dispute between the parties arose from the inter corporate deposit given...
Harpreet Kaur and Others Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % CRL.M.C. 3534/2012 Date of Decision:12. h March, 2013 + # ! HARPREET KAUR & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. G. Rajput, Mr. Jagjit Singh and Ms. Neetu Chauhan, Advocates versus $ * STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN ORDER P.K.BHASIN, J: By way of this joint petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner no. 1-complainant and petitioner nos. 2 to 6-accused, against whom FIR no. 17/2011 was registered on 8th February, 2011 under Sections 420/468/471/34 IPC at Naraina police station, seek quashing of the said FIR in view of a compromise having been arrived at between them.2. Facts which led to the registration of the FIR at the instance of the petitioner no. 1-complainant, who is a widow, may be noted. She claimed to be the owner in possession of 1/4th undivided share in property bearing no. A-19, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi and as per her a...
Damodar Bhagat and ors Vs. Siraz Hussain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-2013
$~ 9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 549/2011 & CM No. 20138/2011 (impleadment) % Judgment dated 12.03.2013 DAMODAR BHAGAT AND ORS ..... Petitioners Through Ms. Amita Gupta, Advocate versus SIRAZ HUSSAIN Through ..... Respondent Mr. Ajit Pudussery & Mr. Dinesh Khurana, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.(ORAL) CM No. 13721/2011 (Ex-certified copies) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. CONT.CAS(C) 549/2011 1. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent have failed to comply with the directions contained in the judgment dated 15.09.2005.2. Ms. Gupta, counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were initially working as contract labour and had approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 3474/2003 praying for re-employment by the Food Corporation of India . The writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 30.04.2004. The respondent being aggrieved by the said ord...
Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 389/2010 Reserved on:18. h February, 2013 Decided on:12. h March, 2013 % AJAY KUMAR YADAV ..... Appellant Through Mr. Sunil, Adv. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA 1 By the present appeal the Appellant impugns the judgment dated 17 th February, 2010 convicting the Appellant for offence under Section 306/498A IPC and the order on sentence dated 19th February, 2010 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, and for offence punishable under Section 498A IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.2. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that there was suicidal tendency in the family of the d...
Santosh Devi Vs. Govt. of Nct., Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.1605/2013 % March 12, 2013 SANTOSH DEVI Through: ..... Petitioner None. versus GOVT. OF NCT., DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Sharma for Mr. Jagdeep Sharma, Adv. for R-1 & 2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. In spite of the matter being passed over no one is present for the petitioner. The present writ petition seeks compassionate appointment with the respondent No.3/school.2. No doubt the school is an aided school, however, the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi has stated that there is no policy for compassionate appointment in aided schools. The petitioner himself admits this in para 2.11 at Page 14 of the writ petition. The petitioner has also not filed any policy entitling the petitioner to compassionate appointment.3. It is held by the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and Anr. Vs. Raj Kumar 2010 (3) S...
M/S S.P. Infra Networks Vs. M/S Bharti Airtel Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-2013
10 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 2289/2010 M/S S.P. INFRA NETWORKS ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Purshotam Singh, Advocate. versus M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LTD ..... Defendant Through: Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Advocate. Date of Decision:12. h March, 2013 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J (Oral): I.A. 7605/2011 in CS(OS) 2289/2010 1. Present application has been filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the present plaint.2. Present application is based on three arguments. Firstly, after the demerger of Bharti Airtel Limited, the plaintiff should have filed the suit against the demerged company Bharti Infratel Limited and not against the present defendant.3. It is also stated that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction as the plaintiff had itself raised an invoice against Bharti Infratel Limited at Plot No.493, Scheme-1, Mangal Pandey Nagar, University Road, Meerut (U.P.).4. It is further stated that the present suit is b...
Ex. Const. Kailash Chander Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-2013
$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on :12. h March, 2013 % + W.P.(C) 4794/2007 EX.CONST.KAILASH CHANDER ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. N.D. Kaushik, Advocate versus UOI & ORS. Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Barkha Babbar, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. The petitioner, who is a serving employee of the Border Security Force (BSF), challenges his dismissal order made on 9.9.2005, pursuant to an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 5.9.2005. He joined the BSF as a constable on 14.04.1998. On the date of the incident, i.e. 5.9.2005, the petitioners Battalion was deployed at the Indo-Bangladesh Border, in Assam at Madhopur. According to the allegations leveled by the BSF at around 2-2.30 p.m. on that date, when the petitioner and another constable, PW-4 Ct. Mahabir Singh, were taking refreshment, he (the petitioner), apparently in an intoxicated state, tried to compel...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »