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.
Ashok Kumar Arora Vs. Ds Sodhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2013
$~14 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA 152/2013 Decided on 21st March, 2013 ASHOK KUMAR ARORA Through: versus ..... Appellant Mr. Satya Narayan, Adv. DS SODHI AND ANR. Through: ..... Respondents None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK A.K. PATHAK, J.(ORAL) 1. Respondent no.1-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 5th April, 2000 (Ex.PW1/7) against the appellant-defendant no.1 before the trial court. Vide judgment and decree dated 1st December, 2012 trial court has declined the relief of specific performance to respondent no.1, however, has passed a money decree in the sum of `3 lacs together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation of decretal amount in favour of respondent no.1 and against the appellant.2. That is how appellant is before this Court by way of present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code, for short).3. Agreement to Sell reads as under :AGREEME...
Fullerton India Credit Co Ltd Vs. Joginder Dharan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 334/2013 % Date of Decision: March 20, 2013 FULLERTON INDIA CREDIT CO LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sagar, Adv. versus JOGINDER DHARAN Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL ..... Respondent VEENA BIRBAL, J.(ORAL) * CM No.4866/2013 (exemption) Allowed, subject to just exceptions. CM(M) 334/2013 1. The petitioner has filed a petition under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) before the Ld.ADJ for appointment of receiver, grant of injunction and seeking repossession of vehicle borrowed by the respondent.2. In the petition under Section 9 of the Act, it is alleged that a loan of `34,500/- was granted to the respondent vide loan agreement dated 19.04.2012 for the purchase of two wheeler to be repaid in equal monthly instalments of `1555/- and the tenure of loan was 30 months. The case of the petitioner is that only 2 instalments were received from responden...
Roop Chand Vs. Jandk; State Agro Industrial Corporation and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.104/2010 % March 20, 2013 ROOP CHAND Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. H.C.R.Khattar, Adv. versus J&K STATE AGRO INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. There are two reliefs which are claimed in this writ petition. One is for the release of gratuity with interest. Second is the claim for benefits in terms of the Sixth Pay Commission Report.2. So far as the implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission Report is concerned, implementation of the same is not automatic and every organization has to see as per its financial conditions and other service conditions of the employees as to whether the organization can adopt the Sixth Pay Commission Report or not. Counsel for the respondents states that the respondent No.1/Corporation has not adopted Sixth Pay Commission Report and has not paid emol...
Fullerton India Credit Co Ltd Vs. Praveen Ranjan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 333/2013 % Date of Decision: March 20, 2013 FULLERTON INDIA CREDIT CO LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sagar, Adv. versus PRAVEEN RANJAN Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL ..... Respondent VEENA BIRBAL, J.(ORAL) * CM No.4861/2013 (exemption) Allowed, subject to just exceptions. CM(M) 333/2013 1. The petitioner has filed a petition under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) before the Ld.ADJ for appointment of receiver, grant of injunction and seeking repossession of vehicle borrowed by the respondent.2. In the petition under Section 9 of the Act, it is alleged that a loan of `35,000/- was granted to the respondent vide loan agreement dated 26.05.2012 for the purchase of two wheeler to be repaid in equal monthly instalments of `1859/- and the tenure of loan was 24 months. The case of the petitioner is that only 1 instalment was received from respondent, ...
Rajeev Kumar Garg Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.1828/2013 % March 20, 2013 RAJEEV KUMAR GARG Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. B.R. Sharma, Advocate. Versus BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar, Advocate with Mr. Ravi Mishra, Advocate. 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 petitioner prays for quashing of the departmental proceedings issued against the petitioner pursuant to the chargesheet dated 10.1.2013. The sum and substance of the charges against the petitioner is that the petitioner demanded a bribe for deferring the orders of disconnection of supply to the premises of one Ms. Kickey Sandhu.2. Three grounds have been urged on behalf of the petitioner before me. First is the lack of authority in the disciplinary authority to conduct the disciplinary proceedings. The second is with respect to the enquiry officer not having the necessary authori...
Mohd. Aslam and ors. Vs. Abdul Wahid and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Judgment:20.03.2013 FAO(OS) 280/2012 MOHD ASLAM & ORS Through ..... Appellants Mr.S.K.Bhalla, Adv. versus ABDUL WAHID & ORS Through ..... Respondents Mr. Rajiv K. Garg, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 The appellants (Ahmed Mian and his successors-in-interest) before this Court are the defendants in the suit proceedings. They are aggrieved by two orders i.e. order dated 03.03.2011 and order 18.05.2012. Vide order dated 18.05.2012, the review petition filed by the appellants seeking a review of the order dated 03.03.2011 had been dismissed. The Court had returned a finding that there was no error apparent on the face of the record calling for the review of order dated 03.03.2011. Vide order dated 03.03.2011, the learned Single Judge had negatived the argument of learned counsel for the appellants predicated on Explanations III & IV of Section 11 of the Code of C...
Latesh and ors Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.502/2011 Date of Decision:20. 03.2013 LATESH & ORS. Through: Appellants. Mr. N.K. Gupta, Adv. Versus UNION OF INDIA Through: Defendants. Ms.Shilpa Singh, Adv. CORAM :HONBLE MR.JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(Oral) 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 29th July, 2011 by virtue of which the claim petition of the appellants, under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Act 1987 for grant of compensation to the extent of Rs.8 Lakhs was dismissed.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a claim petition came to be filed by the appellants, who were the legal heirs of the deceased, Prabhu Dayal. It was alleged, in the claim petition, that on 12.07.2009, after purchasing a railway ticket from Palwal Railway Station, Prabhu Dayal boarded the EMU train not SNP-3 for going to New Delhi and since there was a heavy rush in the compartment of the train, he was standing inside the gate of the compartment. It was alleged that when the t...
Union of India and anr. Vs. A.C.Gangadharan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: March 20, 2013 + W.P.(C) 6778/2011 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ....Petitioners Represented by: Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, Mr.Sunil Kumar and Mr.Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, Advocates. versus A.C.GANGADHARAN .... Respondent Represented by: Mr.R.V.Sinha, Mr.R.N.Singh and Mr.A.S.Singh, Advocates. W.P.(C) 7980/2011 A.C.GANGADHARAN .... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.R.V.Sinha, Mr.R.N.Singh and Mr.A.S.Singh, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ....Respondents Represented by: Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, Mr.Sunil Kumar and Mr.Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. On March 06, 2013, we had passed the following order:1. Learned counsel for the Union of India would obtain instructions from the competent authority whether a quietus can be put to the matter by converting the penalty imposed upon A.C.Gangadharan to one of compulsory retirement. We would like to highl...
Punjab National Bank Vs. Satinder Kapur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment:20.3.2013 + W.P.(C) 8432/2011 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ashim Vachher, Mr.S.M.Hashmi and Mr.Pawash Piyus, Advocates. versus SATINDER KAPUR AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.H.L.Tiku, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Munish Gandhi and Mr.Subhanker Sengupta, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J 1 The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The prayer in the petition seeks a quashing of the order dated 02.9.2011 and a subsequent order dated 22.9.2011 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). The aforenoted two orders were passed on the review applications preferred by the appellants before the DRAT seeking quashing of the original orders dated 04.11.2010 and 22.11.2010. These review applications had been dismissed. The petitioner bank is aggrieved by th...
Smabhavana and anr. Vs. D.D.A. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on : March 13, 2013 Judgment pronounced on : March 20, 2013 W.P.(C) 7487/2008 & CM No.13515/2010 ALL INDIA CONFEDERATION OF BLIND ..... Petitioner Through: Ms Roma Bhagat and Mr Pankaj Sinha, Advs versus UOI & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr Rajiv Bansal, Adv. + W.P.(C) 8419/2008 SMABHAVANA & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Ms Roma Bhagat and Mr Pankaj Sinha, Advs versus D.D.A. & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Rajiv Bansal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN V.K. JAIN, J.1. Section 43 of The Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995 enjoins upon the appropriate Government and the local authorities to frame Schemes, in favour of the persons with disabilities, for preferential allotment of land at concessional rates for houses, setting up business, setting up special recreation centres, and for establishment of special Schools...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »