Delhi Court April 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.
Karan Singh and anr Vs. Union of India and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Decision:26. 04.2013 LA.APP. 92/2013 KARAN SINGH & ANR Through: ..... Appellant Mr L.B. Rai and Mr D.S. Lakra, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(ORAL) CM 6572/2013 (exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. CM 6573/2013 (condonary of delay of 130 days in re-filing the appeal) This is an application for condonation of delay of 130 days in re-filing the appeal. In view of the submissions made therein, the application is allowed and the delay in refiling the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. CM 6571/2013 (condonary of delay of 2542 days in filing the appeal) Vide this application, the appellant is seeking condonation of delay of 2542 days in filing the accompanying appeal, preferred against the order dated 20.8.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in LAC ...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Miss Ramnika and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP.No.807/2006 Date of decision :26. h April, 2013 % NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Adv. versus MISS RAMNIKA & ORS. Through ..... Respondents Mr. Yudhister Sharma, Adv. for R-1. CORAM :THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT(ORAL) 1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.79,853.25/- has been awarded to claimant/respondent no.1.2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent no.2 was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident on 17th October, 2001. It is submitted that the driving licence was issued to the driver on 19th May, 1994 for a period of three years. The licence was renewed after the accident on 26 th March, 2002 for a period up to 25th March, 2005. It is submitted that on the date of the accident, the driving licence of the driver was not valid.3. Respondent no.1 is present in Court along with her father....
Ramraj Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :8. h APRIL, 2013 DECIDED ON :26. h APRIL, 2013 + CRL.A.558/2000 RAMRAJ Through : ....Appellant Mr.Vivek Sood, Advocate with Mr.V.P.Singh, Advocate. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .Respondent Through : Ms.Fizani Husain, APP. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.The present appeal stands dismissed in terms of a detailed common judgment delivered today which is placed in the file of Crl.A.No.557/2000 titled Sarfu vs. State (NCT of Delhi). (S.P.GARG) JUDGE APRIL 26 2013 tr...
Union of India Vs. Lalit Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: April 26,, 2013 + W.P.(C) 1911/2013 UNION OF INDIA ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. D.S.Mahendru, Advocate versus LALIT KUMAR ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.A.K.Trivedi, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. We are constrained to write a slightly long opinion. The reason is the manner in which the Tribunal has disposed of proceedings out of which impugned order dated November 03, 2012 has been passed.2. The respondent met with a traumatic accident on February 15, 2010. A PCR van rushed him to Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS at 9.30 P.M. Given primary and emergency treatment, the respondent was rushed immediately to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital, Janakpuri, probably for the reason requisite medical facilities were not available at the Trauma Centre. At Mata Chanan W P (C) 1911/2013 1 of 6 Devi Hospital, Janakpuri, due to n...
T.R. Sharma and Others Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretary, Minis ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) The applicants have sought the following relief:- (i) That the Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned orders dated order dt. 20.7.2012 and dt. 25.7.2012 (A/1 and A/2), declaring to the effect that the same are illegal, unjust and arbitrary and consequently the applicants are entitled for all the consequential benefits of 2nd ACP including the refund of recovered amount if any in compliance of impugned orders. (ii) Any other relief which the Honble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants are working as Assistant Engineers (C) in the Department of Posts. Applicants No. 3 and 4 are also having additional charge of Executive Engineer (C). Applicants were initially appointed as Junior Engineer and were granted one promotion to the level of Assistant Engineer. Under the ACP Scheme of the Government which provided for upgradation after completi...
Hamdard University Teacher???s Association and anr. Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.920/2012 % April 25, 2013 HAMDARD UNIVERSITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. P.H. Parekh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mohd. Usman Siddiqui, Mr. M. Tarique Siddiqui, Advocate, Ms. Aisha Siddiqui, Advocate, Mr. Aditya Gaur, Advocate and Mr. Vishal Prashad Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Senior Advocate with Ms. Maninder Acharya, Senior Advocate, Mr. Saket Sikri, Advocate, Ms. Ekta Sikri, Advocate and Mr. Sudeep Dey, Advocate for respondent Nos.3,4 and 6. Mr. Mushtaq Ahemd, Advocate with Ms. Sahiba Chand Saheb, Advocate for respondent No.5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? WP(C) No.920/2012 Yes. Page 1 of 18 VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition is filed by two petitioners. Petitioner No.1 is Hamdard...
Uoi and anr. Vs. Preeti Shukla
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2013
$~11 & 17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : April 25, 2013 + W.P.(C) 21357-59/2005 UOI & ORS. Represented by: ..... Petitioners Mr.Amrit Pal Singh, CGSC with Ms.Gurjinder Kaur, Advocate versus J.C.GONSALVEZ & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.L.R.Khatana, Advocate W.P.(C) 6001/2011 UOI & ANR. Represented by: ..... Petitioners Mr.Ruchir Mishra, Advocate with Mr.Ramneek Mishra and Mr.Sanjiv Kumar Saxena, Advocates versus PREETI SHUKLA Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.L.R.Khatana, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG , J.(Oral) 1. Vide order impugned in W.P.(C) No.21357-59/2005, pronounced by the Tribunal on November 17, 2004, the writ petitioners have been directed to pay salary to the Assistant Chemist and Chemist working in the Directorate of Vanaspati Vegetable Oils and Fats, Department of Food and Public Distribution in the pay scale `5000-8000 and `6500-10500 respectively w...
M/S Saurabh Agrotech (P) Ltd. Vs. M/S. Motive Agro Oils Pvt. Ltd. and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2013
F-16 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 473/2009 M/S SAURABH AGROTECH (P) LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate. versus M/S. MOTIVE AGRO OILS PVT. LTD. & ANR. .....Defendants Through: None. Date of Decision:25. h April, 2013. % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J (Oral):1. The amended plaint in the present suit has been filed with the following prayers:26. (a) For a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant by itself as also through its individual proprietors, partners, agents, representatives, distributors, assigns, heirs, successors, stockists and all others acting for and on their behalf from using, selling, soliciting, exporting, displaying, advertising by visual, audio, print mode or by any other mode or manner or dealing in or using the impugned trade mark/label ASHOKA or any other Trade Mark/Label identical with and/or deceptively similar to the said trademark/label ASHOKA of the plaintiff in relatio...
Nb Ris Ravinder Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:14. 03.2013 Pronounced on:25. 04.2013 + W.P.(C) 6311/2012 NB RIS RAVINDER KUMAR SINGH ..... Petitioner Through : Sh. S.S. Pandey, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Sh. Saqib, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by various orders of the respondents by which, even though he ranked first in the merit in the recruitment process for the civilian post of Godown Overseer at the Equine Breeding Stud (EBS), Babugarh, the third respondent, Director General Remount Veterinary Services, denied appointment to him. He is also aggrieved by the cancellation of the No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued by the first two respondents on the one hand and his premature discharge from the army without processing his case for appointment to the said post of Godown Overseer (hereafter the civilian post)...
Ajit Singh Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2013
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.104/2009 & CMs 4242-4243/2009 Decided on :25. h April, 2013 AJIT SINGH Through: Appellant Counsel (appearance not given) Versus STATE & ORS. Respondents Through Ms.Neha Kapoor, proxy counsel CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against judgment dated 2 nd January, 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge dismissing the probate petition of the appellant.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of Late Sh.Jhandu Singh. Jhandu Singh and his brother namely Hans Ram, who was unmarried were the owners of half share each in respect of various properties and the present dispute is with regard to the Will dated 18.5.1983 purported to have been made by Hans Ram. FAO No.104/2009 appellant herein filed a probate petition in respect of the said Will stating that his father Jhandu Singh expired in the year 1986, wif...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »