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.
Tabita Chand Vs. Director of Education and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on:19. 03.2013 Judgment pronounced on:21. 03.2013 LPA 165/2013 and CM No. 4627/2012 (stay) TABITA CHAND ..... Appellant Through: Mr Romy Chacko, Adv. versus DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr Feroze Khan, Adv for respondents 2 and 3, Mr Robin Ratnakar David and Mr Azeem Samuel, Advocates for respondent No. 4 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN V.K. JAIN, J.1. The appellant/writ petitioner was working as a PGT in B.M.Gange Girls Senior Secondary School, which is under the management and control of respondents No.2 and 3. The case of the appellant is that in a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee, held on 1st July, 2008, a recommendation was made to the Managing Committee of the school to promote her to the post of Principal and the Managing Committee, in its meeting held on 3rd July, 2008, taking into consideration the recommendation made by the DPC, resolved to...
Devyani Phosphate Private Limited and anr Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 176/2013 & CM 4923/2013 (interim relief) DEVYANI PHOSPHATE PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. P.K. Mullick, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sachin Datta, CGSC with Ms. Dinesh Sharma, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN ORDER % 21.03.2013 The appellant no.1 set up a unit for manufacture of Single Super Sulphate Fertilizer (SSP) at Jndri in District Udaipur, Rajasthan with installed capacity of 60,000 MT per annum and commenced production on 3.7.2009. At that time, a Scheme framed by the respondent-Union of India as revised on 25.8.2008 was in force for providing subsidy on sell of SSP. Under the aforesaid Scheme, the manufacturers of SSP were required to sell their products at a maximum rate of Rs.3400/- per MT. Such manufacturers, irrespective of their annual production were entitled to get subsidy/ reimbursement from the Government and were to receive on a...
Satish Kapoor and ors Vs. Ankur Arora and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:21. t March, 2013 % + CS(OS) 741/2012, IA No.5511/2012 (u/O 3.R-1&2), 11183/2012 (u/O 3.R-1&2) & CC No.68/2012 SATISH KAPOOR & ORS Through: ..... Plaintiffs Mr. Aman Lekhi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rajeshekher Rao & Ms. Simon Benjamin, Advs. for P-4. Versus ANKUR ARORA AND ORS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Raman Kapoor, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Pragya Singh and Mr. Harsh Sharma Adv. for D-1 to 3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW % JUDGMENT 21 03.2013 For Judgement, see CS(OS)1375/2010 titled BELA KAPOOR & ORS VS. VANDANA KAPOOR & ORS. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.st MARCH 2 , 2013 Bs/M...
Pramod Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON :21. t March, 2013 + CRL.A. 361/2001 PRAMOD Through : ....Appellant Ms.Rakhi Dubey, Advocate. versus STATE Through : .Respondent Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.(Open Court) 1. The appellant- Pramod challenges judgment dated 05.09.2000 in Sessions Case No.37/1999 arising out of FIR No. 734/1998 PS Dabri, by which, he was held guilty for committing offences under Sections 366/342/354 IPC. Vide order dated 06.09.2000, he was sentenced to undergo RI for five years with total fine ` 5,000/-.2. Allegations against the appellant were that he, Billa and Rajesh Kumar kidnapped prosecutrix X (assumed name), aged 10 years and committed rape upon her. Charges under Sections 342/363/366/34 IPC and under Section 376 (g) were framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed Trial. The prosecution examined nine witnesses to substantiate the charges. In his 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant pleaded false impli...
Davinder Jeet Kaur Vs. Secretary, Nct and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C) No. 3094/2012 21st March, 2013 DAVINDER JEET KAUR Through: ......Petitioner Mr.Shahid Ali Rao and Mr. Manoj Sharma, Advocates. VERSUS SECRETARY, NCT & ORS Through: ...... Respondents Mr. Sachin Datta, CGSC with Ms. Niti Arora, Adv. for R-1. Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Adv. for R-2 and R-3. Mr. Anuj Tyagi and Mr. Sachin Chopra, Adv. for R-1 & 4. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The only relief claimed in this petition is that petitioner who is an employee of the respondent no.3-school be paid salary in terms of the 6th Pay Commission Report. The Director of Education has already issued a circular dated 11.2.2009 directing the schools in Delhi to implement the 6 th Pay Commission Report with respect to the salaries payable to the teachers.2. I have already had an occasion to consider this aspect in a string of cases and one such case is T.P.Singh Vs. Guru Harkishan ...
Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Company and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:21.03.2013. CO. Appeal Nos. 28-29/2006 LAKSHMIJI SUGAR MILLS COMPANY & ANR. ...Appellants Through: Mr.Shariq J.Reyaz, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through ..... Respondents Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr.B.V.Niren, CGS, Mr.Prasook Jain and Mr.Ashish Virmani, Adv. for R-1, 3, 4 (UOI). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved by the finding returned by the learned Company Judge in its order dated 31.03.2006. The learned Company Judge while sanctioning the Scheme proposed by the appellants/propounders held that the Sugar Development Fund (SDF), a Government Company shall remain outside the Scheme. This order was challenged by filing an application (C.A. No. 504/2006) under Rules 9 and 6 of the Company (Court) Rules 1959 seeking modification of the order dated 31.03.2006; the submission that the SDF has been inadvertently kept out of the...
Ram Kumar Gupta Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Judgment:21.03.2013 FAO (OS) Nos.181/2012 & 182/2012 RAM KUMAR GUPTA Through:- ...Appellant Mr. S.N. Gupta and Mr. S.S. Shukla, Advs. Versus STATE & OTHERS Through:- ... Respondents Mr. Prakash Gautam and Mr. Amit Panigrahi, Advs. for R-2 & R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) 1 This is an unfortunate dispute between the male siblings of deceased Bhikhu Ram Gupta (hereinafter referred to as the deceased). The deceased was the owner of a double storeyed house built on plot No. 21/32, Shakti Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the property). Admittedly this was his self-acquired property and it was within his domain to bequeath this property in accordance with his wish. 2 Mr. Bhikhu Ram Gupta died on 04.10.1998. He was survived by his three sons and four daughters. The dispute is inter-se the sons of the deceased. 3 Test Case No.44/1999 was filed by Krishan...
Dtc Vs. Sukhbir Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on:19. 03.2013 Judgment pronounced on:21. 03.2013 LPA 768/2012 & CM 19674/2012(delay in filing) DTC Through : ..... Appellant Ms. Avnish Ahlawat with Ms. Latika Choudhary and Mr. Vaibhav Misra, Advs. versus SUKHBIR SINGH Through : + ..... Respondent Mr. H.K.Chaturvedi, Ms. Anjali Chaturvedi, Mr. Ajit Kumar Jain and Mr. C.M.Verma, Advs. LPA 774/2012 & CM 19822/2012(delay in filing) SHUKHBIR SINGH Through : ..... Appellant Mr. H.K.Chaturvedi, Ms. Anjali Chaturvedi, Mr. Ajit Kumar Jain and Mr. C.M.Verma, Advs. versus DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through : Ms. Avnish Ahlawat with Ms. Latika Choudhary and Mr. Vaibhav Misra, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN V.K. JAIN, J.CM Nos. 19674/2012 (delay in filing) in LPA 768/2012 and CM 19822/2012(delay in filing) in LPA 774/2012 For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay in filing the appeals is condoned. The applications s...
Sheela Vs. Chairman, Dtc
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + R.S.A. No.18 of 2006 Decided on :21. t March, 2013 SHEELA Through: Appellant Ms. Meenu Mainee, Advocate. Versus CHAIRMAN, DTC Through: Respondent Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat & Mr. Hanu Bhaskar, Advocates for the DTC. 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 dated 16.8.2005 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge dismissing the appeal of the appellant bearing R.C.A. No.76/2004.2. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that a substantial question of law arising from the present appeal is with regard to the interpretation of Clause 9 of the Pension Scheme, Delhi Transport Corporation, applicable to the Central Government employees. The learned counsel has submitted that this court vide order dated 7.2.2011 had permitted the appellant to file a fresh representation in the light of Clause 9 of the aforesaid Scheme to the respondent and the latt...
Babu Khan Vs. Union of India and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
$~ 22 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C) No.6312/2011 Date of decision:21. t March, 2013 BABU KHAN Through : ..... Petitioner Mr. Rajat Aneja with Mr. Ishaan Chhaya, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through : ..... Respondents Mr. R.V. Sinha and Mr. R.N. Singh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA GITA MITTAL (Oral) 1. The petitioner assails the disciplinary proceedings conducted against him pursuant to the chargesheet dated 30th September, 2009; inquiry report dated 6th February, 2010 and; the order dated 10th August, 2010 of the disciplinary authority agreeing with the recommendations of the inquiry officer and holding that the petitioner was guilty of the charge and imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement upon him. The writ petitioner also assails the order dated 28th September, 2010 passed by the DIG, Railway Protection Special Force whereby the petitioners appeal was dismissed, as well as order dated 18th March, 2010 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »