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.
Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors. Vs. Jasbir Saini
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : April 01, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on : April 10, 2013 + WP(C) 5425/2011 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Petitioners Represented by: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Ms.Latika Chaudhary and Mr.Vaibhav Mishra, Advocates. versus JASBIR SAINI Represented by: ..... Respondent Ms.Reeta Kaul, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. A case of imperfect pleadings has resulted in an inchoate order being passed without even highlighting what was the issue which required adjudication. Both, the petitioners as also the respondent are responsible for the same.2. As per respondents claim pleaded in OA No.458/2010, she was a direct recruited librarian in the Directorate of Education and was drawing salary in the pay scale `1400 - 2600 which was the scale recommended by the 4th Central Pay Commission. Increment was due to her on the first day of February each year and thus he...
M/S Abhishek Enterprises and anr Vs. M/S M.D.Overseas Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.477/2012 & CM 19984/2012 (stay) Decided on :10. h April, 2013 M/S ABHISHEK ENTERPRISES & ANR. Appellants Through: Mr.Hamid Ali, Adv. Versus M/S M.D.OVERSEAS LTD. Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 25.9.2012 passed by the learned ADJ in Civil Suit no.1038/2000 (in M. No.3/2012) by virtue of which the application of the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex-parte decree.2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record.3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has been that the learned ADJ has fallen into an error by not condoning the delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, although, reasonable explanation was given for non-appearance and for not filing any application despite having lear...
Bijender Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:3. d April, 2013 Pronounced on:10. h April, 2013 + CRL.A. 78/2012 DALIP SINGH Through: ..... Appellant Mr.V.K.Malik, Advocate with Mr. Rahul Raj Malik, Advocate Versus STATE OF (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State + CRL.A. 239/2012 BIJENDER SINGH Through: ..... Appellant Mr.V.K.Malik, Advocate with Mr. Rahul Raj Malik, Advocate Versus STATE Through: + ..... Respondent Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State CRL.A. 240/2012 UMED SINGH Through: ..... Appellant Mr.V.K.Malik, Advocate with Mr. Rahul Raj Malik, Advocate Versus STATE Through: + ..... Respondent Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State CRL.A. 241/2012 RAJINDER SINGH Crl.A. 78/2012 Etc ..... Appellant Page 1 of 12 Through: Mr.V.K.Malik, Advocate with Mr. Rahul Raj Malik, Advocate versus STATE OF DELHI Through: + ..... Respondent Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State CRL.A. 242/2012 SAJJAN SINGH Through: ..... Appellant Mr.V.K.Malik, ...
P. K. Saran Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
$-6 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP(C) No.6680/2010 Date of decision :10. h April, 2013 % P. K. Saran Through : ..... Petitioner Ms. Rekha Palli with Ms. Punam Singh and Ms. Amrita Prakash, Advs. versus Union of India & Ors. Through : ...... Respondents Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA GITA MITTAL, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioner, who was commissioned in the Indian Army in 1978, was unfortunately not empanelled for promotion to the rank of Colonel by the Quality Assurance Selection Board (QASB) on 20th June, 2005 when the QASB conducted its proceedings. In response to the petitioners statutory complaint, on 21st June, 2005 the respondents informed the petitioner that the same was on account of the adverse remarks in his Annual Confident Report for the period 1st June, 2000 to 31st January, 2001. These remarks were communicated to the petitioner only on 21 st February, 2006. The petitioner was granted partial redres...
Sh. T.V. Sharma Vs. Government of N.C.T., Ministry of Tourism and Deve ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.523/1997 % April 10, 2013 SH. T.V. SHARMA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Ashok Kumar Mahapotra, Advocate. versus GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T., MINISTRY OF TOURISM & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. P.C. Sen, Advocate with Ms. Sara Sundaram, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition is filed by one Sh. T.V. Sharma against his employer-respondent No.2/DTTDC claiming benefits of promotion from the year 1991. The petitioner in the year 1991 was a Junior Salesman and he claims that w.e.f 1991 he should be promoted to Salesman Grade-I.2. The recruitment rules for promotion from a Junior Salesman to Salesman Grade-I are as under:- In case of recruitment by promotion/deputation/transfer to be made (11) Graduate with 5 years experience as Jr. Salesman or Non Graduate with 8 years experience as Jr. Salesman in the ratio of 1:...
Bharat Nagar Slum Basti Victim Association Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
$~07. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 561/2011 Order dated 10th April, 2013. % BHARAT NAGAR SLUM BASTI VICTIM ASSOCIATION ..... Petitioner Through : Mr.Prag Chawla and Mr.Subhash Shokeen, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS Through : ..... Respondents Mr.Ajay Verma, Adv. for DDA along with Mr.S.N. Gupta, Director (LM), DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) 1. W.P.(C) 2155/2009 was filed by the petitioners, who were displaced in the December, 2006, when the MCD demolished their jhuggis. In the aforesaid writ petition, petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus declaring the acts of the respondents in dispossessing the petitioners from their properties without reallocating the petitioners elsewhere by providing alternate plots in terms of the reallocation policy as illegal arbitrary, discretionary, unconstitutional and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also prayed for a direction to reallocate the petitione...
Sh. Rajiv (Jolly) Khosla Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
$~23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2281/2013 SH. RAJIV (JOLLY) KHOSLA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Madhu Sudan Bhayana, Adv. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr Himanshu Bajaj, Adv for Respondents 1 and 2 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN ORDER 10 04.2013 % This is a petition filed by the Secretary General of National Panthers Party Delhi Pradesh, seeking a direction to the respondents to provide adequate concession to the students studying in schools, colleges and vocational institutes in Delhi while travelling on the network of respondent No. 5Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC). In support of the petition, the petitioner is relying upon Articles 39(a) (b) and (d), 41, 42, 43 and 45 of the Constitution of India. This is also the case of the petitioner that Ministry of Railways is granting 60% concession to the students in Kolkata Metro.2. A perusal of the letter dated 21.02.2013 sent by DMRC to the petitioner ...
Anil Kumar Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:18. 02.2013 Pronounced on:10. 04.2013 + W.P.(C) 405/2013 ..... Petitioner ANIL KUMAR Through : Advocate. Ms. Shweta Priyadarshini, versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through : Sh. Joginder Sukhija, CGSC. + W.P.(C) 5416/2012 & C.M. NO. 11037/2012 (for ex-parte relief) RAKESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through : Sh. N.L. Bareja, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through : Sh. Himanshu Bajaj, CGSC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The grievance in these two petitions is common. The writ petitioners are Anil Kumar [in W.P.(C)405/2013] and Rakesh Kumar W.P.(C) 405/2013; W.P.(C) 5416/2012 &, C.M. NO.11037/2012 Page 1 [in W.P.(C) 5416/2012]. Rakesh Kumar had applied for recruitment to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Executive) [ASI (Exec)] with the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) in response to an advertisement. They c...
Surinder Kumar Singh Vs. State Nct of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
$~7 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 1238/2011 SURINDER KUMAR SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Shivek Trehan, Adv.with Mr.Laksh Khanna,Advs. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Naveen Sharma APP for State Mr.Rajesh Kr.Chaurasia, Adv.for R2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR ORDER % 10.04.2013 By this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 25.9.2009 whereby the Ld. Magistrate directed the concerned SHO to register an FIR and file the compliance report. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present petition is that the order passed by the Ld.Magistrate is explicitly illegal and perverse as at the post cognizance stage, the Magistrate could not have reverted to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Addressing arguments on the present petition, counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent who are the complainant had filed a complaint case under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for the alleged offen...
Manohar Singh and anr. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: March 14, 2013 Pronounced on: April 10, 2013 + CRL. M.C. 1952/2009 MANOHAR SINGH & ANR. Through: .....Petitioners Mr. Ashok Gurnani, Mr. Snehansu Tripathi, Ms. Bharti Tripathi, Mr. B.N.Sharma & Mr. Sudhanshu Pali, Advocates Versus STATE & ORS Through: + ....Respondents Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for RespondentState with ASI Virender Singh, PS Mehrauli and HC Ishwar Chand, PS Hauz Khas, Delhi Mr. S.K. Rungta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Pratiti Rungta and Mr. Prashant Singh, Advocates for Respondents No.8, 9 & 11 to 14 Mr. Som Dutta Sharma and Mr. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocates for Respondents No.6 and 7 CRL. M.C. 1959/2009 MANOHAR SINGH & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Ashok Gurnani, Mr. Snehansu Tripathi, Ms. Bharti Tripathi, Mr. B.N.Sharma & Mr. Sudhanshu Pali, Advocates Versus STATE & ORS. Through: Crl. M.C. Nos.1952/2009 &1959/2009 ....Respondents Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for RespondentPag...
- ‹ Prev
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- Next ›
- Last »