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.
Rameshwar Dayal Vs. Commissioner of Police and Another
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2013
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A): 1. This O.A. has been filed against denial of appointment to the applicant in Delhi Police. 2. Facts of the case are that the applicant had applied for recruitment to the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police in the year 2009. The applicant cleared the test and was provisionally selected to the said post subject to verification of character and antecedents. On 16.01.2011 he was issued a show cause notice as to why his candidature for the post of Constable (Driver) -2009 should not be cancelled on account of his involvement in two criminal cases which were as follows:- 1. FIR No.202/2002 u/s 376 IPC PS. Rajgarh, Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan dated 27.7.2002. 2. FIR No. 134/2010 u/s 30413/406/201 IPC PS. Mahila Thana, Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan 24.09.2010. 3. He gave a representation against the show cause notice. His case was considered by the Screening Committee constituted for this purpose and thereafter his candidature was terminated vide order dated 15.03.20...
Sub Pratap Singh Shekhawat Vs. Chief of Army Staff and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2013
1. The petitioner by this petition has prayed that respondents be directed to place the records of special DPC on record before the Court to justify their result to show how petitioner has not come up in merit, and any aberration in CR may please be quashed on ground of subjectivity and bias, specially those ACR written after the petitioner filed court case before the Tribunal. 2. The petitioner was inducted into the Territorial Army as a Sepoy on 15.12.1983 and was promoted as Nb Subedar on 01.05.1994 and subsequently as Subedar on 01.02.1997. Thereafter, his case was considered for promotion to the post of Subedar Major but since the petitioner had not passed the retention examination, which was an essential criteria, therefore, he was not found eligible for consideration by the DPC. However, petitioner submitted that the petitioners case was considered by the DPC in 2008 and he was approved for promotion but because of non-passing of retention examination, he was not found suitable ...
Nct of Delhi and ors. Vs. Pramod Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: March 01, 2013 + WP(C) 3676/2011 NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Aditya Madan, Advocate. versus PRAMOD KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Vide impugned order dated November 22, 2010, relying upon the decision of a Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal disposing of O.A.No.1330/2007 Mrs.Victoria Massey v. NCT of Delhi & Ors., directions issued is to pay claimants before the Tribunal pay in the minimum scale with effect from September 01, 2008 with dearness allowance.2. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that in the Original Application, the claimants before the Tribunal, impleaded as respondents in the writ petition, were claiming parity with Doctors.3. The argument and the grievance advanced in the writ petition are absurd.4. Responden...
Satpal Singh and ors. Vs. the Indian Construction Corporation Ltd. and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP(C) No. 1294/2000 & 1286/2000 % 1. March 01, 2013 W.P.(C) No.1294/2000 SATPAL SINGH AND ORS. Through: ..... Petitioners Ms. Maninder Acharya, Advocate. Versus THE INDIAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. S.K. Jha, Advocate.2. W.P.(C) No.1286/2000 SHRI M.S. VERMA AND ORS. Through: ..... Petitioners Ms. Maninder Acharya, Advocate with Mr. M.S. Verma, petitioner No.1 in person. versus THE INDIAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. S.K. Jha, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. These two writ petitions are filed by a total of 53 petitioners. The claim in the writ petitions was that petitioners had got promotion from the post of Senior Assistant to Section Officer in W.P.(C) No.1286/2000 titled as Shri M.S. Verma and Ors. Vs. The Indian Construction Corporation Ltd. and Ors. and from the post of Per...
Sumit Lal Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:1. t March, 2013 + CRL. M.C. 130/2012 SUMIT LAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Anil Sharma, Adv. versus STATE & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents 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 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for setting aside of the order dated 08.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) whereby she dismissed the Appeal against the order dated 08.07.2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) whereby the Petitioner was directed to pay maintenance of `1500/- per month to the Respondent.2. The facts leading to filing of the Petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) are that the Respondent claimed to have married the Petitioner on 04.01.1997 at the Methodist Church, Idgah, De...
Satpal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2013
$~15&16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.429/2012 Date of decision:1. t March, 2013 % SATPAL ..... Appellant Through Mr. Saurabh Kansal, Advocate. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP for the State. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 430/2012 RAJU ..... Appellant Through Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL): The two appellants have been produced before us from the prison. Learned Amicus Curiae spoke to them outside the Court. Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP has also spoken to them outside the Court. As noticed in our order dated 28th February, 2013, ASI Rajvir Singh (PW3) has not been cross-examined at the Trial Court. PW-3 is the most important witness, as per the Trial Court judgment itself, as he has stated that he had seen the occurrence and detained the appellants immediately thereafter. L...
Sankalp Singh Vs. Prarthana Chandra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:10. 01.2013 Date of decision:01. 03.2013 % + FAO No.312 of 2012 SANKALP SINGH Through: .Appellant Mr. Rishabh Sancheti & Ms. Padma Priya, Advs. with Appellant in person. Versus PRARTHANA CHANDRA Through: ....Respondent Mr. Ankur Mahindroo, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Batra, Sr. Adv. (Amicus Curiae). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.1. Marriage under Hindu Law is sacramental. The reforms in Hindu Personal Law have a history of more than 180 years starting from the initiatives taken by Raja Ram Mohan Roy. There were various enactments to reform the law relating to marriages and divorce amongst Hindus. Post independence a Hindu Code was drawn up which resulted in different legislations relating to personal laws. Thus, The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) is an Act to amend and codify the law relating to marriages among Hindus.2. Section 13 of ...
Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajkumari and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2013
$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:1. t March, 2013 % + MAC.A.677/2012 UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Vivek Kishore and Mr. Rajat Khattry, Advs. versus RAJKUMARI AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Amit Kumar Pandey, Adv. for R1 to R6. Mr. Vishwa Ranjan Kumar, Adv. for R7 & R8. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 17.04.2012 passed by the ld. Tribunal whereby the appellant was held liable to pay the compensation amount in favour of the respondents / claimants.2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued only on one ground that the ld. Tribunal has granted 50% of increase in future prospectus, whereas, as per the settled law in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., where a person is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will get 30% increase in his total income.3. Ld. Counsel appear...
Rajeev Bhalla Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2870/2012 Rajeev Bhalla ..... Appellant Through:Ms. Iti Sharma versus ..... Respondent State & Anr. Through: Mr. Chander M. Maini CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR ORDER % 1.03.2013 CRL.M.C. NO. 2870/2012 1. By this Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C , the petitioner seeks quashing of Complaint bearing CC No. 400/K/ 2012 respondent no. 2 under section 138 of Negotiable titled as filed by the Instrument Act, 1881 Smt. Neeraj Chopra V. Sh. Rajeev Bhalla and also the summoning order dated 01.05.2012, issued by the court of Sh. Chander Mohan, Metropolitan Magistrate (Central), Tees Hazari Courts, Delhi.2. Addressing arguments on the present petition, counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent who is a complainant before the learned Magistrate is the sister of the petitioner and the petitioner in good faith had handed over three blank signed cheques to the respondent herein for the purpose of payment of some insurance ...
Krishan Sharma Vs. Raj Rani Bhardwaj and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2013
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + R.S.A. No.19 of 2010 & C.M. No.2146 of 2010 (for stay) Decided on :1. t March, 2013 KRISHAN SHARMA Through: ..... Appellant Appellant in person. Versus RAJ RANI BHARDWAJ & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. V.B. Andley, Senior Advocate with Mr. Priyank Sharma & Mr. K.C. Baliar Singh, Advocates for R-1 & 2. Mr. Rajan Tyagi, Advocate for R-3. Mr. Balvinder Ralhan, Advocate for R-4 (a) & (b). Ms. Kusum Lata Sharma & Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocates for R-9. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a regular second appeal under Section 100 CPC against the judgment/decree dated 12.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in R.C.A. No.19/2003 dismissing the first appeal of the appellant.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein had filed a suit bearing No.399/2001 for declaration, injunction, partition and possession in respect of House No.118, Gali No.6, Kishan Naga...
- ‹ Prev
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 47
- Next ›
- Last »