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.
Vinod Kumar Vs. C.P.Andors.;
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: April 29, 2013 + W.P.(C) 5173/2001 VINOD KUMAR ..... Petitioner Represented by:Mr.Anil Singal, Advocate versus C.P.& ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by:Mr.Arjun Syal, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Summary of allegations against the petitioner reads as under:It is alleged against Constable Vinod Kumar No.1435/SD (formerly No.7911/DAP) that while posted in DAP/VI Bn. he impersonated himself as a Sub-Inspector of Delhi Police and claimed to be a widower to deceitfully induce Ms.Nishu Aggarwal D/o Shri Birj Mohan r/o C/44, Sector-I, Rohini to have matrimonial relations with him. Thus their marriage was solemnized on 13.2.1994 at latters residence on 13.2.1994 in the presence of relatives/acquittances of both of them. This marriage was consummated by him under above circumstances for about a year. He also made above said lady to part wi...
Satish Kumar Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % CRL.A. 3/2003 Decided on: SATISH KUMAR Through:29. h April, 2013 ..... Appellant Ms. Shikha Pandey, Advocate with Appellant in person. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for the State with SI Karamvir Singh, PS Malviya Nagar. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J (ORAL) 1. By the present appeal the Appellant lays a challenge to the judgment dated 19th December, 2002 whereby he was convicted for offence under Section 307 IPC and the order on sentence dated 21st December, 2002 whereby he has been directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 years and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days.2. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the injured witness has turned hostile. The Appellant has been convicted on the basis of the testimony of PW1, the alleged eye witness, a relative of the injured PW4 and an ...
Ram Pyare Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
$~ 23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.2630/2013 & CM No.4985/2013 Date of decision:29. h April, 2013 % RAM PYARE Through : ..... Petitioner Mr. A.K. Mishra, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Himanshu Bajaj, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J.(Oral) 1. Rule D.B. Mr. Himanshu Bajaj, counsel for the respondents accepts issuance of rule.2. It is submitted that given the prior adjudication in similar matter, counter affidavit is not necessary. Counsel for the parties are accordingly heard.3. Petitioner, who is serving as HC (AR/MR), was recruited in 1983 as Constable in CRPF. He contends that he was medically examined several times and was found in the medical category of SHAPE-1. The Petitioner was promoted to the post of HC (AR/MR) in the year 1989. WP(C) No.2630/2013 page 1 o4. The Petitioner cleared his Promotion Cadre Course (PCC) on 24.02.2012 and subsequently the Respondent...
Union of India and anr. Vs. D.L.Vhora and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
$~5-8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Decision: April 29, 2013 W.P.(C) 1535/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Represented by: .....Petitioners Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr.Ruchir Mishra and Mr.Ashish Virmani, Advocates versus CENTRAL GOVT. SAG & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Nidhesh Gupta, Sr.Advocate with Mr.M.K.Ghosh and Mr.Tarun Gupta, Advocates W.P.(C) 2348/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Represented by: .....Petitioners Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr.Ruchir Mishra and Mr.Ashish Virmani, Advocates versus D.L.VHORA & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Sushil Kumar Malik, Advocate W.P.(C) 2349/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Represented by: .....Petitioners Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr.Ruchir Mishra and Mr.Ashish Virmani, Advocates versus PPS GUMBER & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Sushil Kumar Malik, Advocate W.P.(C) 2350/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Represented by: .....Petitioners Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr.Ruchir Mishra and Mr.Ashish Virmani, ...
Prem Singh Vs. Land and Building Department and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Decision:29. 04.2013 W.P.(C) 2710/2013 UMED SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr N.S. Dalal, Mr Amit Rana, Mr D.P. Singh, Advs. versus LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Mr Sanjeev Sahay, Adv. for LAC/L&B Ms. Swati Verma, Advs. for Mr Rajiv Bansal, Adv. DDA + W.P.(C) 2128/2013 PREM SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr N.S. Dalal, Mr Amit Rana, Mr D.P. Singh, Advs. versus LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Mr Sanjeev Sahay, Adv. for LAC/L&B Ms. Swati Verma, Advs. for Mr Rajiv Bansal, Adv. DDA + W.P.(C) 2721/2013 TARA CHAND ..... Petitioner Through: Mr N.S. Dalal, Mr Amit Rana, Mr D.P. Singh, Advs. versus LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ORS. ..... Respondent Through: W.P.(C)No.2710/2013 Ms. Swati Verma, Advs. for Mr Rajiv Bansal, Adv. DDA + W.P.(C) 2126/2013 DEVENDER ..... Petitioner Through: Mr N.S. Dalal, Mr Amit Rana, Mr D.P. Singh, Advs. versus LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ORS. ..... Resp...
Smt.Pramod Popli Vs. Kulachi Hansraj Model School and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C) No. 4601/2012 29th April, 2013 SMT.PRAMOD POPLI Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Ashok Aggarwal and Ms. Nisha Tomar, Advocates. VERSUS KULACHI HANSRAJ MODEL SCHOOL & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The only relief claimed in this writ petition is the claim of the petitioner for benefits of 6th Pay Commission Report, and which has been held applicable to schools by the circular of the Director of Education dated 11.2.2009.2. I have had an occasion to consider this aspect in various judgments and as per a recent judgment passed on 14.2.2013 in W.P.(C) No. 12132/2009 titled as T.P.Singh Vs. Guru Harkrishan Public School & Ors., I have held that benefits of Sixth Pay Commission have to be given to employees of schools in Delhi.3. In the present case, school is respondent no.1 namely Kulachi Hansra...
Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors. Vs. Haripal Arya
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: April 23, 2013 Judgment Delivered on: April 29, 2013 + W.P.(C) 4052/2012 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.V.K.Tandon, Advocate with Mr.Yogesh Saini, Advocate versus MUKESH KUMAR Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.L.R.Khatana, Advocate W.P.(C) 3549/2012 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DELHI AND ANR ..... Petitioners Represented by: Mr.S.Q.Kazim, Advocate with Mr.M.H.Usmani, Advocate versus MANDEEP Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate W.P.(C) 3925/2012 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DELHI AND ANR ..... Petitioners Represented by: Mr.A.K.Trivedi, Advocate for Dr.S.P.Sharma, Advocate versus BHAWANI Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate W.P.(C) 3932/2012 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS W.P.(C) No.4052/2012 & Conn. Matters ..... Petitioners Page 1 of 26 Represented by: Mr.A.K.Trivedi, Advocate for Dr.S.P.Sharma, Advocate versus HARIPAL ARYA Represented by: ..... Respondent...
Devender Vs. Land and Building Department and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Decision:29. 04.2013 W.P.(C) 2710/2013 UMED SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr N.S. Dalal, Mr Amit Rana, Mr D.P. Singh, Advs. versus LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Mr Sanjeev Sahay, Adv. for LAC/L&B Ms. Swati Verma, Advs. for Mr Rajiv Bansal, Adv. DDA + W.P.(C) 2128/2013 PREM SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr N.S. Dalal, Mr Amit Rana, Mr D.P. Singh, Advs. versus LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Mr Sanjeev Sahay, Adv. for LAC/L&B Ms. Swati Verma, Advs. for Mr Rajiv Bansal, Adv. DDA + W.P.(C) 2721/2013 TARA CHAND ..... Petitioner Through: Mr N.S. Dalal, Mr Amit Rana, Mr D.P. Singh, Advs. versus LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ORS. ..... Respondent Through: W.P.(C)No.2710/2013 Ms. Swati Verma, Advs. for Mr Rajiv Bansal, Adv. DDA + W.P.(C) 2126/2013 DEVENDER ..... Petitioner Through: Mr N.S. Dalal, Mr Amit Rana, Mr D.P. Singh, Advs. versus LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ORS. ..... Resp...
Gnct of Delhi and ors. Vs. Rahul Dev
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: April 29, 2013 + WP (C) 2627/2013 GNCT OF DELHI & ORS. Represented by: .....Petitioners Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate with Ms.Latika Chaudhary, Advocate versus RAHUL DEV Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Raman Duggal, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Relying upon paras 19, 20 and 24 of the decision reported as (2000) 1 SCC 12.Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. MCD & Ors.; and distinguishing the decision of the Supreme Court reported as (2001) 2 SCC 36.Indian Airlines Ltd. & Ors. Vs. S.Gopalakrishnan, vide impugned decision dated January 23, 2013, interpreting the essential qualifications and experience required to fill up the post of Instructor (Maths) the Tribunal has held that the respondent was duly qualified as also eligible for the post in question notwithstanding there being an overlap in the period of experience and the diploma obtained by the re...
Tata Sons Ltd. and anr. Vs. Amit Mahna and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
-* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS (OS) No. 1228/2004 Date of Decision:29. 04.2013 TATA SONS LTD. & ANR. ....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Achuthan Sreekumar, Ms. Udita, Advs. Versus ...Defendant AMIT MAHNA & ORS. Through: Nemo CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J.1. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendants seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademarks TATA by the defendants. The plaintiffs are also praying for an order of delivery-up of all infringing materials along with the rendition of accounts of profit illegally earned as well as damages.2. This suit has been filed by Tata Sons Ltd., a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The plaintiff has contended that it was established in the year 1917 and is the principal investment holding company of the Tata Group, which is Indias oldest, largest and best-known conglomerate with a turnover of USD 9 Billion. The name TATA is stated to be have b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »