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.
Dr. Kusum Sabharwal and Another Vs. Mrs. Sangeeta Aggarwal and Another
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2013
V.K. Gupta, Member: 1. This appeal by the OP No.2 and 3 of the complaint case No.516 of 2008 is directed against the order dated 20.10.2010 of the District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi whereby directing Dr. Kusum Sabarwal, OP No.2 to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as the cost of litigation. 2. Briefly stated factual scenario of the case is that the appellant/OP No.2 is a doctor by profession, who is engaged and employed by OP No.1 for providing medical treatment of the patient suffering from obstetrician and gynaecological disorder. On 15.3.2008, the complainant/respondent registered herself for medical advice with the Tarawati Ramgopal Mehra Cheritable, Foundation Medical Centre, OP No.1 for suspected conceivement and thereby associated physiological and medical changes pertaining to her body, resulting from possible failure of method adopted by her better half. On the same day Dr. Kusum Sabharwal, OP No.2 conducted medical termination of pregnancy (MTP), which...
Asstt. Manager (Civil) I.T.D.C. Vs. Chairman and Managing Director
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2013
By Circulation: Sudhir Kumar, Member (A): This Review Application has been filed seeking a review of the order pronounced on 21.12.2012 in OA No.4424/2011. That judgment was passed after considering the arguments of both the sides, and the numerous case laws cited by the learned counsels of both the parties. However, the review applicant has filed this Review Application, and has taken the following grounds, and our observations on those grounds are as follows:- a) That there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dated 21.12.2012 with regard to the fact that the applicant had misled the Tribunal about the missing file while the files and documents were seized from the Almirah of the applicant by the Committee, and were handed over to the Department on 14.01.2005, after the applicant was arrested in another case on 28.12.2004, and was put under suspension. It is seen that the facts regarding this missing file have already been discussed in Paragraphs 14, 15, 20,...
Chater Pal Vs. Union of India Through the General Manager and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2013
A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J): 1. The short question arises to be determined in the present OA is the date from which the applicant should get the benefit of Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme. According to the learned counsel for the applicant in terms of letter No.P-4/Posting/- dated 11.10.2000 (Annexure A/2) he was appointed as a substitute khallasi purely on temporary basis against vacancy under SSE/E/DEE/L, thus the service rendered by him after the said date should be taken into account as qualifying service for the purpose of upgradation in terms of the said Scheme and only the service rendered prior to said date should be divided by two. In other words, only the service rendered as temporary status casual labour can be cut into 50% and not the service rendered by a substitute while taking into account such service to determine eligibility of an employee for financial upgradation. 2. In the counter-reply filed on behalf of respondents it is explained that the total nu...
Sh. Rajan Sharma Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP(C) No. 1761/2012 4th March, 2013 % SH. RAJAN SHARMA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate with Mr. Vikas Saini, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. V.S.R. Krishnav, Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. S.S. Mishra, Advocate with Mr. Adbhut Pathak, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) + W.P.(C) No.1761/2012 and C.M. Nos.19093/2012 (directions) and 3871/2012 (stay) 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking directions for being appointed as a member of Railway Claims Tribunal, w.e.f. 14.3.05 inasmuch as it is pleaded that the petitioner was in fact called for interview, was selected and placed at serial No.1 in the Selection List of Members (Judicial). It is pleaded that the selection list is prepared by a committee comprising of a Judge of H...
Surinder Kaur Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2013
$~2. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 245/2012 Date of decision:4. h March, 2013 SURINDER KAUR ..... Appellant Through Mr. Shailender Dahiya & Mr. Pradeep Ahlawat, Advocates along with appellant in person. versus STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP for the State. Mr. Anish Dhingra, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Deepak Vohra, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL):1. Surinder Kaur, mother of the deceased-Darshan Singh, has filed the present appeal impugning the judgment dated 29th October, 2011 and order of sentence dated 9th November, 2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in the charge sheet emanating from FIR No. 266/2005, Police Station Nangloi, under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short).2. By the impugned judgment, the respondent No. 2 Randhir Singh @ Dhira has been convicted under Section 304 Part-I ...
Const. Raja Ram No. 873280156 Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:04. 03.2013 + W.P.(C) 194/2013 CONST. RAJA RAM NO. 873280156 ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Arvind Kumar Patel with Mr. Hem Kumar, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Amritpal Singh, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. On the previous date of hearing, this Court had issued notice requiring the respondents to produce the record of the inquiry and the records pertaining to the order of the Disciplinary Authority. Further to that order, the respondents have produced the relevant record.2. Issue Rule.3. Mr. Amritpal Singh, Advocate submits that the petition can be disposed of at this stage after final hearing.4. The petitioner, who, at the relevant time was working in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) at its Jorhat ONGC unit in Assam, was served charges through a Memorandum dated...
Amarjeet Singh @ Babloo Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON : February 12, 2013 DECIDED ON : March 04, 2013 + CRL.A. 317/2000 AMARJEET SINGH @ BABLOO Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Bhupesh Narula, Advocate. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through : Ms.Fizani Husain, APP. SI Amit, PS Model Town. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Amarjeet Singh @ Babloo impugns the judgment dated 14.01.2000 in Sessions Case No.70/1998 arising out of FIR No.360/1998 registered at Police Station Model Town by which he was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Section 307 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act. Vide order on sentence dated 18.01.2000, he was to undergo RI for three years with fine `2,000/-.2. Allegations against the accused were that on 12.07.1998 at about 08.05 P.M. at Bara Park, Model Town, he voluntarily fired at the police party consisting of Inspector Suminder Pal Tyagi, SI Satender Kumar, Constable Rajesh Kumar and Constable Amit Kumar. Secret information with the police was that th...
Kanwaljeet Kaur Bedi Vs. Aditya Birla Retail Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: February 27, 2013 Judgment delivered on: March 4, 2013 + OMP No.515/2011 KANWALJEET KAUR BEDI ..... Petitioner Through Mr.A.P.S. Ahluwalia, Sr. Adv. with Mr.S.S. Ahluwalia and Mr.Rohan Ahuja, Advs. versus ADITYA BIRLA RETAIL LTD. & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Mr.Sanjeev Anand, Adv. with Ms.Kajal Chandra and Mr.Abhas Kumar, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.I.A.No.10836/2011 (condonation of delay) 1. The petitioner filed the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the award dated 23 rd March, 2010 passed by Sh.P.L. Joshi, the sole Arbitrator in the matter. Along with the objections, the petitioner filed an application under Section 34(3) read with Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of about 11 months in filing the petition for setting aside the Award dated 23rd March, 2010.2. By this order I propose to decide the application for con...
Ram Sunder Vs. the State (N.C.T. of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :18. h February, 2013 DECIDED ON :4. h March, 2013 + CRL.A. 301/2012 RAM SUNDER Through : ....Appellant Mr.S.K.Sethi, Advocate. versus THE STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) .Respondent Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. The appellant- Ram Sunder impugns judgment dated 01.09.2010 and order on sentence dated 03.09.2010 in Sessions Case No.105/2008 arising out of FIR No.201/2008 PS Aman Vihar by which he was convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 376/506 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine ` 5,000/- under Section 376 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for five months. He was further sentenced to undergo RI for two years with fine ` 1,000/- under Section 506 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for one month. Both the sentences were directed to operate concurrently.2. Allegations against the accused were that on 0...
Meena Kumari @meenu Vs. the Medical Suprintendent,lok Nayak Hospital
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.2513/2010 % March 04, 2013 MEENA KUMARI @MEENU ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Gyan Prakash with Ms. Neeraj, Advs. versus THE MEDICAL SUPRINTENDENT,LOK NAYAK HOSPITAL ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani with Ms. Bandana Shukla, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM No.2667/2013(application for restoration of interim relief) This application is disposed of inasmuch as I have heard counsel for the petitioner on the main writ petition and which is being disposed of today itself by a judgment. CM stands disposed of. WP(C) No.2513/2010 1. The petitioner after selection got employment as a nursing orderly with the respondent No.1-Hospital. At the time of taking employment, the petitioner was asked to fill up a form in January, 2009 and the first four lines of the form specifically stated that the furnishing of false information or suppression of any fact...
- ‹ Prev
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- Next ›
- Last »