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.
Rajesh Babu Vs. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : April 09, 2013 + W.P.(C) 2053/2012 RAJESH BABU Represented by: .....Petitioner Mr.Apurb Lal, Advocate versus MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.B.V.Niren, CGSC with Mr.Prasouk Jain, Advocate for R-1 Mr.S.M.Arif, Advocate for R-2 and R-3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. For the peculiar facts which we would be hereinafter noting, the writ petition has to be allowed.3. It is a settled law that mere delay by itself in issuing a charge-sheet would by itself not be a good ground to quash the chargesheet as being belated, but where the delay causes prejudice in the form of evidence disappearing, such a charge-sheet has to be quashed.4. The facts are that on November 14, 2007, a charge-sheet for minor penalty under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 was served ...
Future Generali India Ins Co Ltd Vs. Dulari and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:9. h April, 2013 MAC.APP. 757/2010 FUTURE GENERALI INDIA INS CO LTD ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, Adv. Versus DULARI & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv. for R1 to R7. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Vide the instant appeal, appellant has challenged the impugned award dated 31.08.2010, whereby ld. Tribunal has awarded the following compensation in favour of the respondents / claimants: Loss of financial dependency Loss of love and affection Loss of consortium Funeral Expenses Loss to Estate 2. Rs. 3,73,400/Rs.10,000/Rs.10,000/Rs. 5,000/Rs.10,000/- Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has drawn the attention of this court to the statement of the informant Phoolchand recorded in the FIR as under: I resident of the above said address and works as a Halwai and today morning about 6 AM, I along with my collegues whose names are Ram Prasad,...
Rajendra Singh and ors. Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.2227/2013 % April 09, 2013 RAJENDRA SINGH AND ORS. Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. Keshav Kaushik, Advocate with Ms. Sumati Sharma, Advocate. versus UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 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 15 petitioners who were appointed from time to time on ad hoc basis for fixed periods of about 89 days by the respondent No.3-college. The details with respect to the employment and re-employment for different periods of each of the petitioners are given from pages 17 to 39 of the writ petition.2. On behalf of petitioners, it is contended that petitioners were selected through a regular recruitment process and have been given artificial breaks of services, but now the respondent No.1-University by notification dated 4.2.2013 has dire...
Chob Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:09. 04.2013 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.237/1999 & CLR.M.A. 7186/2012 CHOB SINGH Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate. Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP versus STATE AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.17/2000 & CLR.M.A. 7187/2012 ASHOK KUMAR Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate. Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP versus STATE CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL) 1. Chob Singh and Ashok Kumar by the impugned judgment dated 21.07.1998 have been convicted under Sections 302, 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). They have been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for having committed the murder of Prem Singh in the night intervening between 25/26.07.1997. In default of payment of fine, they have to undergo rigorou...
Sanjay Kher and ors Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C) No. 2089/1996 9th April, 2013 SANJAY KHER & ORS Through: ...... Petitioners Mr. Subrat Basak, petitioner no.2 in person. VERSUS UOI & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Mr. Paritosh Budhiraja and Mr. Vikas B. Pakhiddey, Advocates for R-2. CORAM: HONBLE 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 the four petitioners who were the employees of the respondent no.2-employer namely Rashtriya Pariyojna Nirman Nigam Ltd. The four petitioners were deputed for different periods by the respondent no.2 in Iraq. Petitioners claim that the foreign allowances which were granted to them at the initial stage should be revised upwards not only on account of increase of the DA granted to the employees in India but also because the NonIFS officers of the Government of India who were posted abroad from time to time received enhancements in the foreign allowances payable to...
Lakhwinder Singh and Others Vs. Commissioner of Police, Phq, Mso Build ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A): 1. The applicants, who are 13 in number, have sought the following relief:- (a) quash and set aside the impugned orders and Direct the respondents to grant the next financial upgradation to the applicants in accordance with MACP scheme by including the length of service rendered by the applicants as Constable (Exe.) with all consequential benefits. award costs of the proceedings and pass any other order/direction which this Honble Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicants and against the respondents in the facts and ircumstances of the case. 2. Facts of the case are that the applicants joined Delhi Police as Constable (Exe.) on different dates between 1977 and 1989. They were absorbed as Constables (Drivers) on different dates between 1983 and 1998. Subsequently, all of them earned promotions as Head Constables and some of them were also promoted as Asstt. Sub-Inspectors. While the cases of all the applicants are similar, for the sake of conv...
Jitender Kumar Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through Its Chief Secret ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J): Pursuant to the selection conducted by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB), the name of the applicant was nominated or recommended for appointment as Grade-IV (DASS)/LDC in the Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Consequent to the offer and acceptance for appointment, the applicant was appointed as Grade-IV (DASS)/LDC vide appointment Order dated 07.10.2010/16.11.2010, wherein he was informed that he will be on probation for a period of two years. Accordingly he joined on 16.11.2010. 2. As a pre-recruitment requirement, the applicant has submitted an attestation form on 01.08.2010 (Annexure `E). The relevant Column No.13 seeking certain information from the applicant, pertaining to his criminal record, and the answers/information furnished by the applicant is as under: 13(a) Have you ever been arrested? Yes (b) Have you ever been prosecuted? Yes (c) Have you ever been kept under detention? No (d) Have you ever been fined by a ...
Ex Nb Sub Ram Ashry Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
1. The petitioner vide this petition has prayed to quash the decision of the respondents of not revising the seniority of the applicant in the rank of Nb Sub and discharging the applicant based on the policy instruction dated 21.09.1998. He has further prayed that respondents be directed to reinstate the applicant in service based on the revised policy on grant of extension issued vide letter dated 10.11.2010 with all consequential benefits with further direction for consideration of the applicant for promotion to the rank of Sub ahead of Respondent No.4 or any other juniors who have been promoted ahead of the applicant earlier. 2. The petitioner was enrolled in the Army in Artillery Regiment as Operator on 05.06.1985. He was promoted as a Hav on 21.04.2004 with ante-dated seniority of 01.04.2004 he was declared a Low Medical Category on 07.10.2006(temporary) and became permanent Low Medical Category on 29.12.2006 for a period of two years. Thereafter, he was discharged from service w....
Virender Singh Vs. Deepak Bhatia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:13. h March, 2013 Pronounced on:8. h April, 2013 + CRL.L.P. 491/2011 VIRENDER SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates versus DEEPAK BHATIA Through + ..... Respondent Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates CRL.L.P. 492/2011 VIRENDER SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates versus DEEPAK BHATIA Through + ..... Respondent Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates CRL.L.P. 493/2011 VIRENDER SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates versus DEEPAK BHATIA Through + ..... Respondent Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates CRL.L.P. 494/2011 VIRENDER SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates versus DEEPAK BHATIA Through + ..... Respondent Mr....
Virender Singh Vs. Deepak Bhatia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:13. h March, 2013 Pronounced on:8. h April, 2013 + CRL.L.P. 491/2011 VIRENDER SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates versus DEEPAK BHATIA Through + ..... Respondent Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates CRL.L.P. 492/2011 VIRENDER SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates versus DEEPAK BHATIA Through + ..... Respondent Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates CRL.L.P. 493/2011 VIRENDER SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates versus DEEPAK BHATIA Through + ..... Respondent Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain & Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates CRL.L.P. 494/2011 VIRENDER SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates versus DEEPAK BHATIA Through + ..... Respondent Mr....
- ‹ Prev
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- Next ›
- Last »