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.
Ram Sarup @ Nathan Ram Vs. Kokila Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2013
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.189 of 2002 & CM No.3503/2010 Decided on :6. h March, 2013 RAM SARUP @ NATHAN RAM ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Yogendra Gautam, Adv. for the LRs of the appellant. Versus KOKILA DEVI & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a regular second appeal filed by Ram Sarup @ Nathan Ram (since deceased) against Kokila Devi (since deceased), both of them now represented by their legal heirs.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the substantial question of law. The learned counsel has stated that the substantial questions of law arising from the present regular second appeal, reads as under:- (i) Whether the court below can dismiss the suit for possession specially when it is proved by the sale deed and Municipal records that the plaintiff is the owner? (ii) Whether the municipal numbers of the property in dispute when proved by the officials of the MCD can be disbelieved by...
Jagjit Singh Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C) No. 3589/1997 6th March, 2013 JAGJIT SINGH Through: ...... Petitioner Mr. Ashok Bhalla and Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Adv. VERSUS PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, Mr. Prashant Narang and Ms. Anupama Dhurve, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 4.9.1995 imposing upon the petitioner the major penalty of removal from the services of the respondent-bank.2. The petitioner was issued a charge sheet dated 4.10.1994 which showed that the petitioner was guilty of giving loans to various persons without taking security documents. Petitioner was also found to be opening fake accounts. The imputation of charges against the petitioner reads as under:- STATEMENT OF IMPUTATION OF CHARGES IN SUPPORT OF ARTICLE OF CHARGES AGA...
Major General Shyam Shrivastava Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:06. 03.2013 + W.P.(C) 1469/2013, C.M. APPL. 2780/2013 MAJOR GENERAL SHYAM SHRIVASTAVA ..... Petitioner Through : Major K. Ramesh (Retd), Advocate with Ms. Archana Ramesh, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Sh. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. Issue notice. Sh. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate accepts notice. With consent, the petition was taken-up for final disposal.2. The petitioner seeks a direction to quash an Army HQ Signal dated 05.02.2013 and a subsequent Army HQ Signal dated 22.02.2013. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner is a serving Major General in the army. He was promoted to that post and posted as W.P.(C) 1469/2013, C.M. APPL. 2780/2013 Page 1 MGEME HQ Northern Command, Udhampur, J&K on 22.02.2012. Thereafter he was posted to as Commander of HQ Base Workshop Group EME on 17.05...
Mr. Shambhu Nath Das and ors. Vs. Director of Education and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.2132/2011 % March 06, 2013 MR. SHAMBHU NATH DAS AND ORS. .... Petitioners Through: Mr. Rajiv Tyagi, Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. versus DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND ORS. .... Respondents Through: Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Aadil Singh Boparai, Advocate with Ms. Vatsala Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition, the petitioners who are employees of respondent Nos.2 and 3 pray for granting them monetary benefits payable under the report of sixth pay commission.2. I may note that the Director of Education/respondent No.1 had issued instructions/circular way back on 11.2.2009 directing the schools to make payments in terms of sixth pay commission report. Payments were to be made in instalments as stated in paras 7 and 8 of the said circular dated 11.2.2009.3. Counsel for t...
Ravendra Garg Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.2215/2011 % March 06, 2013 RAVENDRA GARG .... Petitioner Through: None. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Through: .... Respondents Mr. Vikram Saini, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. R. Venkatramani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Shodhan Babu, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. Rahul Kriplani, Advocate for respondent No.6. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. In this writ petition three reliefs were claimed and which read as under:(a) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any order or direction quashing the letter dated 16.03.2011 issued by the Respondent No.1 and steps, if any, taken to give effect to the letter dated 16.03.2011; (b) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any order or direction to the Respondent No.1 directing the Respondent No.1 to immediately take steps for finalising the selection of Director(Engineering) in p...
Cit Vs. Sadhna Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2013
$~4 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:06. 03.2013 ITA 434/2012 CIT ..... Appellant versus SADHNA GUPTA ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Sanjeev Rajpal, Sr. Standing Counsel. For the Respondent : Mr Piyush Kaushik, Advocate. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. This appeal has been filed by the revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) being aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.5266(Del)/2010 relating to assessment year 2007-08. It appears that this appeal had been admitted for hearing by an order passed by this Court on 30.07.2012. However, learned counsel for the parties pointed out that there is some typographical error in the question of law which has been framed. Consequently, we reframe the substantial question of law as un...
Dr. Lal Path Lab. P. Ltd. Vs. Vijay Jindal and Another
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2013
V.K. Gupta, Member(Judicial): 1. This appeal by the appellant/OP of complaint case No.846/2006 is directed against the order dated 21.01.2009 passed by District Forum(New Delhi), directing the appellant to refund Rs.3300/- as fee, Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation charges. 2. In nut-shell the brief facts are that on 08.06.2006 a baby was born and the doctors directed the complainant for specific tests to ascertain the genitalai of the baby. The doctor further suggested following case. (i) Sodium, serum (ii) Potassium, serum (iii) Buccal simear/Barr Bodie (iv) Chromosome (Karyctype) 3. The baby was borne at Ram Chand Memorial Nursing Home, which advised that the tests to be conducted by the appellant/OP. Consequently on 09.06.2006 the baby was taken to the laboratory of the appellant for aforesaid tests which charged Rs.3300/-. Respondent/complainant was asking for the report and every time it was directed that the report will be given on 29.06.2006. On this date t...
Dr. Chhote Lal and Another Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Health and ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2013
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A): 1. The applicants have sought the following relief:- (a) Call for the relevant file(s)/record(s) of the respondents and peruse the same; (b) Declare the order bearing No.A-18011/1/2011-E.I dated 4th April, 2012 (Annexure-A Impugned) as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory; (c) Declare that the applicants have rightly been granted the pay-scale of Rs.8000-13500 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and subsequently they are entitled for the revised pay-scale of Rs.15600-39100 in Pay Band-3 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400 in view of the recommendations of 6th Central Pay Commission and acceptance thereof by Government of India through CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 1.1.2006, re-fixation of their pay and payment of arrears on account of such revision/re-fixation with interest @ 12% p.a. till realization thereof; (d) Award cost of this application and proceedings against the Respondents and favour of the Applicants. (e) May also pass further order(s) as be deemed just and proper to...
Prem Singh and Others Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Commissioner o ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2013
G. George Paracken: 1. All these five Original Applications are almost identical and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. Facts in them which are necessary for their adjudication are detailed hereunder:- OA 4219/2011 The applicant is aggrieved by the impugned Annexure A-1 show cause notice dated 14.3.2011 and the impugned Annexure A-2 order dated 11.5.2011 passed by the respondents. By the aforesaid show cause notice, he was called upon to explain as to why his candidature for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police should not be cancelled. The reasons given for the same are as follows:- Scrutiny of your Application Form and Attestation Form filled up by you revealed that you had disclosed in the relevant columns of both the forms about the facts of your involvement in criminal case FIR No.39/2007, dated 15.02.2007 U/s 143/323/341 IPC, PS Laxmangarh, Distt. Alwar (Rajasthan) in which you had been acquitted by the Court vide order dated 04.12.2009 as both the...
S.i. Badal Singh Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Commissioner of Pol ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2013
G. George Paracken: 1. In this Original Application, the Applicant has challenged Annexure A-1 order No.17793/CB-II/PHQ dated 24.03.2011 passed by the Respondent No.2 whereby it has rejected his claim for grant of benefits under the ACP Scheme. According to the said order, the decision regarding grant of benefits under the ACP Scheme to the Applicant was kept in Sealed Covers vide orders dated 01.11.2001 and 24.06.2002. However, when it was opened by the competent authority, it was found that Screening Committee had already declared him Unfit due to serious punishment dated 03.02.1998 and moral turpitude and overall unsatisfactory service record. He has also assailed the Annexure A-2 order dated 25.01.2012 rejecting his representation dated 05.08.2011 for admission of his name to Promotion List F (Executive) with effect from 12.08.1994. According to the said letter, his aforesaid request was rejected as the Review DPC found him Unit for admission of his name in the said list both w.e.f...
- ‹ Prev
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- Next ›
- Last »