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....
Prem Kishore Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve :14. 02.2013 Date of Decision :08. 04.2013 + LPA 808/2004 & C.M. APPL. 10564/2004 PREM KISHORE ..... Appellant Through : Sh. G.D. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Sanjiv Joshi and Sh. Piyush Sharma, Advocates. versus CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through : Sh. K.K. Tyagi and Sh. Iftikhar Ahmad, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The present appeal by an unsuccessful writ petitioner (referred to as the petitioner) is directed against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge, dated 20-2-2004, dismissing WP 662/1984.2. The Petitioner was selected for appointment to the post of Junior Technical Assistant. His letter of appointment, dated 17.10.1983, stated that: (iii) For probation and other terms and conditions his, her services will be governed by the CWC (Staff) Regulations as enforced from time to time.3. The Pe...
Satish Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. 2300/2000 Decided on :8. h April, 2013. SATISH KUMAR Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Mohinder Madan & Ms. Rashmi B. Singh, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through Ms. Archana Gaur, Advocate for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. The petitioner seeks a direction to set aside the order dated 5.10.1998 issued by the Commandant and a subsequent order dated 14.05.1999 issued by the Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) which led to his dismissal from the services of the Force.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was selected, and subsequently, enrolled with the Force sometime in February, 1991. Originally he was posted at ONGC Nazira in Assam. Subsequently, he was posted to the CISF unit at Pipri (U.P.). While so in relation to an incident whi...
Charanjit Vs. D.D.A.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3352/2010 CHARANJIT ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Saini and Mr. Sitab Ali Chaudhary, Advocates versus D.D.A. % ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate Date of Decision : April 09, 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL JUDGMENT : REVA KHETRAPAL, J.1. The Petitioner in this writ petition is aggrieved by the allotment of a flat, being Flat No.158, Third Floor, Peera Garhi, New Delhi in a dilapidated condition. The Petitioner is also aggrieved by the fact that the DDA has charged the Petitioner for the said flat for a plinth area of 100.80 sq. mtrs. whereas the actual plinth area of the demised flat is 78 sq. mtrs.2. The facts briefly delineated are that the Petitioner had applied under general category for allotment of MIG flat under the DDA Housing Scheme, 2008 by depositing the required amount of ` 1,50,000/- as registration deposit. She was issued an Allotment-cum- Demand Letter dated 23.11.2009 allotting...
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....
S.K. Taqui Vs. the Cement Corporation of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 206/2013 S.K. TAQUI ..... Appellant Through: Dr. M.Y. Khan, Adv. versus THE CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN ORDER % 08.04.2013 CM 5506/2013 & 5508/2013 (exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The applications stands disposed of. LPA 206/2013 & CM 5507/2013 (delay) On 11.2.1986, the appellant, working as Lower Division Clerk with the respondent, applied for grant of House Building Advance, for construction of a house at his native place Jais in U.P. as per Rules of the respondent corporation. A sum of Rs.90,000/- disbursible in three instalments was sanctioned to the appellant. The first instalment of Rs.27,000/- was released to him on 25.2.1996. This was followed by release of second instalment of Rs.36,000/- on 10.7.1986. On 15.2.1990, the appellant was served with a charge-sheet primarily on the allegations that he had n...
Rajender Singh Dagar Vs. the State Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:19. h March, 2013 Pronounced on:8. h April, 2013 + CRL.M.C. 161/2013 RAJENDER SINGH DAGAR Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. R.N.Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.P. Kaushal, Advocate with Mr. Ankit Goel, Advocate versus + THE STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dinesh Mudgil, Advocate Mr. Ajandra Sisodia, Advocate for Complainant. CRL.M.C. 428/2013 PADAM SINGH DAGAR Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. R.N.Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.P. Kaushal, Advocate with Mr. Ankit Goel, Advocate versus STATE NCT OF DELHI Through: + ..... Respondent Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dinesh Mudgil, Advocate Mr. Ajandra Sisodia, Advocate for Complainant. CRL.M.C. 681/2013 BHARAT SINGH Crl.MC 161/2013, 428/2013 & 681/2013 Through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dinesh Mudgil, Advocate, Mr. Ajandra Sisodia...
idpl Vrs and Retired Employees Welfare Federation Gu Vs. the Secretary ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P(C) No. 261/2010 8th April, 2013 IDPL VRS & RETIRED EMPLOYEES WELFARE FEDERATION GURGAON, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, Y.R.SURI & ORS. ...... Petitioners. Through: Mr. S.K.Singh, Advocate for Ms. Seema Kashyap, Advocate. VERSUS THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, CGSC with Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for R-1 & 2. Mr. R.S.Mathur, Advocate for R-3. 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 admittedly filed by those petitioners who have taken voluntary retirement (and which petitioners as many as are 570 in number) but are now seeking arrears of pay on account of pay revision for the period prior to their taking voluntary retirement.2. The issue is no longer res integra and the Supreme Court in the case of Officers and Supervisors of IDPL vs. Chairman and MD, IDPL & Ors., 2003 (6) SCC 49.has held that p...
Brahamjeet Vs. Kanwar Pal Gautam and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.291/2006 Decided on :8. h April, 2013 BRAHAMJEET Through: Appellant Ms.Monica Kapoor, Advocate Versus KANWAR PAL GAUTAM & ORS. Through Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.3. The appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit bearing No.231/2004 for possession and permanent injunction against the respondents. The said suit was dismissed after trial by the learned Civil Judge on 22.2.2006.4. The appellant/plaintiff feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal bearing Civil Appeal no.30/2006 titled Sh.Brahamjeet Vs. Sh.Kanwarpal Gautam and Ors. which was also dismissed by the first appellate Court on 30.5.2006 upholding the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.5. Still not feeling satisfied, the appellant has filed the present regular second appeal.6. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to...
- ‹ Prev
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- Next ›
- Last »