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.
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....
Sh. G.B.Singh and Others Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % WP(C) No. 2710/1996 2nd April, 2013 RAJESH KUMAR & ORS. Through: ...... Petitioners Ms. Manisha Singh, Advocate. VERSUS HONORARY JOINT SECRETARY, AFWWA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Ritika, Advocate for R-2 and 4. 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 twelve petitioners as per amended memo of parties dated 23.4.2009.2. The petitioners are employed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 as gardeners, sweepers and guards. In the writ petition, the following reliefs are claimed :(a) A writ of Certiorary to respondents to regularise the employment of the petitioners. (b) To issue any writ directions of order to the respondents to frame proper rules governing the appointment salaries, increment, promotion, provident fund, pension, leave, medical, housing, etc. WP(C) 2710/1996 Page 1 (c) To issue any writ direction or order prohibiting the respo...
M/S. Ttk Prestige Ltd. Vs. M/S. India Bulls Retail Services Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:8. h April, 2013. + CS(OS) 631/2010 & I.A. No.13606/2011 (u/O 3.R-3 CPC) M/S. TTK PRESTIGE LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through: Ms. Vasudha Arya, Ms. Samridhi Chawla and Rajesh Sharma, Advocates. Versus M/S. INDIA BULLS RETAIL SERVICES LTD. ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ankit Shah and Mr. Arnar Kumar, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW JUDGMENT % 08.04.2013 I.A. No.4674/2012 (of defendants for leave to defend) 1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit under Order XXXVII of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for recovery of Rs.20,52,551.78 with pendente lite and future interest at 24% per annum pleading: (i) that the plaintiff, as per the orders placed by the defendant on the plaintiff, sold/supplied and delivered pressure cookers, pressure pans, non-stick cook wares, appliances and other kitchen utensils manufactured by the plaintiff to the defendant through its various branch offices and ...
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....
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Mata Prasad
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LPA 486/2012 & CM 11241/2012 (stay) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Shobha Takiar, Adv. versus MATA PRASAD Through: ..... Respondent Mr. C. Mohan Rao and Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate with respondent in person. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN ORDER % 08.04.2013 Vide application dated 25.2.1981, the respondent Mr. Mata Prasad applied for allotment of residential plot measuring 26 sq. metres in Rohini Residential Scheme of DDA. In the application form, he claimed to be a member of Scheduled Caste category. A Scheduled Caste certificate was also submitted by the respondent. However, instead of including in Scheduled Caste category, the name of the respondent was included in the General Category. Alleging that had his name been included in the Scheduled Caste category, he would have been allotted a Janta Flat way back in the year 1990, the respondent filed a writ petition seeking directi...
Vijender Singh Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :28. h February, 2013 DECIDED ON :8. h April, 2013 + CRL.A. 108/2012 & CRL.M.B.175/2012 VIJENDER SINGH Through : ....Appellant Ms.Puja Srivastava, Advocate. versus DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE .Respondent Through : Mr.Sushil Kaushik, Advocate. AND + CRL.A. 1561/2011 & CRL.M.B.Nos.2249/2011 & 1503/2012 ROZY VIJENDER @ ELIZABETH SAMUEL ....Appellant Through : Ms.Puja Srivastava, Advocate. versus DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE .Respondent Through : Mr.Sushil Kaushik, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. The appellants- Vijender Singh (A-1) and Rozy Vijender @ Elizabeth Samuel (A-2) impugn judgment dated 15.10.2011 in Sessions Case No. 28A/2006 arising out of Complaint ID No.02403R0183302006 (Ex.PW-2/A) by which they were held guilty for committing offence under Section 21(c) NDPS Act and acquitted of the charges under Section 29 read with Section 21(c) of the Act. Vide order dated 17.10.2011, they we...
Pearl Retail Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs. Pearl Education Society
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 117/2013 PEARL RETAIL SOLUTIONS PVT LTD ..... Plaintiff Through Ms. Anuradha Salhotra with Mr. Sumit Wadhwa and Mr. Zeeshan Khan, Advocates versus PEARL EDUCATION SOCIETY ..... Defendant Through Mr. Ravi Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Baid and Ms. Diva Arora, Advocate Date of Decision:08. h April, 2013 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J (Oral): I.A. 4103/2013 in CS(OS) 117/2013 [under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC] 1. Present application has been filed by the defendant under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC for vacation of the interim order dated 23rd January, 2013. It is pertinent to mention that this Court vide order dated 23rd January, 2013 had restrained the defendant, its proprietor/partner, representatives, dealers, servants, assignees and successors from using the world PEARL or any trade mark deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trade mark PEARL in relation to its services as part of its cor...
H.T. Media Ltd and ors Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:6. h February, 2013 Pronounced on:8. h April, 2013 + CRL.M.C. 3060/2010 H.T. MEDIA LTD & ORS Through: ..... Petitioners Mr.A.J.Bhambhani,Ms.Nisha Bhambhani & Mr.Apurv Chandoola, Advocates versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: + Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State CRL.M.C. 3922/2010 H.T. MEDIA LTD & ORS Through: ..... Petitioners Mr.A.J.Bhambhani,Ms.Nisha Bhambhani & Mr.Apurv Chandoola, Advocates versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Crl. M.C. Nos. 3060/2010, 3922/2010, 3456/2011 & 837/2012 + CRL.M.C. 3456/2011 HINDUSTAN MEDIA VENTURES LTD AND ORS Through: ..... Petitioners Mr.A.J.Bhambhani,Ms.Nisha Bhambhani & Mr.Apurv Chandoola, Advocates versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: + Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State CRL.M.C. 837/2012 & Crl.M.A.3466/2012 H.T. MEDIA LTD & ORS Through: ..... Petitioners Mr.A.J.Bhambhani,Ms.Nisha Bhambhani & Mr.Apurv Chandoola, Advocates versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP f...
- ‹ Prev
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- Next ›
- Last »