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.
Ravinder Kaur Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3570/2010 RAVINDER KAUR Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Nanda Kinra, Advocate. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Advocate. % Date of Decision : April 05, 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL JUDGMENT : REVA KHETRAPAL, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is set down for final hearing and disposal.2. The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Delhi Development Authority to allot to the Petitioner a MIG flat under the policy of missing priority framed by the DDA dated 25.02.2005, and the policy instructions issued by the Vice-Chairman, DDA on 02.04.2004, and also in accordance with the DDA Circular dated 07.10.2008.3. The essential facts of the case are not in dispute. In 1979, the registrant Amar Singh booked a MIG flat vide registration No.36 under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 and died on 04.09.1985....
Shailender Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Director of Estates and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 8649/2010 & CM No. 21986/2010 5th April, 2013 % SHAILENDER KUMAR AGGARWAL ...... Through: Mr. V.K.Mishra, Advocate. Petitioner VERSUS DIRECTOR OF ESTATES & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Ms. Sweety Manchanda, Advocate for R-1 & 2. Mr. M.M. Sudan, 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 petition is filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the impugned allotment order dated 21.8.2010 whereby the petitioner had been allotted Type-III accommodation. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to Type-IV accommodation.2. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the following directions which were made by this Court on 6.10.2010 in CM No. 12647 of 2010 in W.P.(C) No. 4023/2007. Vide orders dated 29th July, 2010 directions were given to the respondent BSNL to allot accommodation to the petitioner as per his entitlement from the BSNL pool within ...
Ravipreet Singh Vs. National Rifle Association of India (Nrai)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: April 2, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: April 5, 2013 % + O.M.P. 207/2013 & I.A.No.3902/2013 RAVIPREET SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Sachin Puri, Ms.Kaadambari Puri and Ms.Nitya Kalia, Advs. versus NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF INDIA(NRAI) ..... Respondent Through Dr.A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv. and Mr.N.K. Kaul, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Jaiveer Shergill and Mr.Rook Ray, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) seeking the following reliefs : i) Restrain the respondent from holding elections in the arbitrary manner; ii) Direct the respondents to hold elections in adherence to the model Election Guidelines provided in the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011 and to provide complete schedule for elections including appo...
Ravinder @ Guddi Vs. State Govt. of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 1276/2012 Reserved on:26. h February, 2013 Decided on:5. h April, 2013 % RAVINDER @ GUDDI Through ..... Appellant Mr. Sandeep Kapoor with Ms. Y. Kapoor, Advs. versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP with SI A.K. Sharma, PS Mundka, Delhi. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA 1 By the present appeal the Appellant challenges the judgment of conviction and order on sentence each dated 12th October, 2012 whereby the Appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 307 IPC and directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five months.2. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the public witnesses PW1 and PW2 have not supported the prosecution case. The complainant Praveen Kumar was an interested witness and his testimony is full of infirmities. Further in absence of co...
Kulwant Kaur and anr Vs. the State and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + F.A.O. No.53 of 2005 Decided on :05. April, 2013 KULWANT KAUR & ANR. Through: Appellants Mr. Rajinder Dhawan, Advocate. Versus THE STATE & ORS. Through: Respondents Mr. Shashank K. Lal, Adv. for R-2 to 4. Mr. Harish Malik & Mr. Rohit Bhardwaj, Advocates for R-9 & 10. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 299 and 384 of the Indian Succession Act against the judgment dated 27.4.2004 passed in P.C. No.350/2001 titled Kulwant Kaur vs. The State & Others.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case leading to the filing of the present appeal are that one S. Inderjit Singh Loyal (hereinafter referred to as the testator), son of S. Dalip Singh died as a bachelor on 8.4.1992. He had 1/6th undivided share in a building, namely, Dalip Singh Building, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt. According to the appellants, the deceased/testator had executed a registered Will on 18.2...
Amarjit Singh Kalra (Decd.) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Pramod Gupta (Decd.) Lrs. an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
$~Special Bench-1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA 309/1980 AMARJIT SINGH KALRA (DECD.) THR. LRS...... Appellant Through Ms. Maldip Sidhu, Advocate. Mr. Sunil Dutt Baloni, Advocate for Mr. S.S. Panwar, Advocate for Appellant Nos.10(a), 10(b), 10(c), 18(b), 18(c), 19(a), 19(b), 19(c), 19(d), 23, 28(b), 28(c), 28(d), 39(a), 39(b), 39(d), 39(e), 39(f) & 39(g). versus PRAMOD GUPTA (DECD.) LRS. & ORS. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Manish Vashisht, Advocate with Mr. Sameer Vashisht and Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocates for R-1(b). Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma and Mr. Pankaj Veram, Advocates. Mr. Rahul Malhotra, Advocate for R-8, 12 to 15. Ms. Shobhna Takiar, Advocate for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. GARG ORDER 05 04.2013 % C.M.No.2288/2013 This an application on behalf of Sanjay Gupta, respondent No.1(b) for recall of the order dated 28th August, 2012 passed in C.M.Nos.13033/2004, 13034/2004, 13035/2004 and 13036/2004.2. C.M.No.13033/2004 was fi...
Jai Krishan Dass Vs. Hari Kishan Dass and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % RESERVED ON:26. 04.2012 PRONOUNCED ON:05. 04.2013 + RFA (OS) 27/1997 CM APPL.5201, 16364/2007 & 2641 & 2939/2009 JAI KRISHAN DASS ..... Appellant Through: Mr. H.L. Tikku, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Yashmeet and Ms. Renuka Arora, Advocates. versus HARI KISHAN DASS & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Lalit Gupta,Mr. Ranjan Grover and Mr. Nishant Prateek, Advocates for Resp5&6. Mr. N.K. Kantawala with Mr. Arvind Bhat, Advocates for Resp-1&8. Ms. Sangeeta Jain, Advocates for LRs of Resp-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. GARG MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT 1 This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 11-07-1997 in Suit No. 235/1976. The appellant (hereafter referred as Jai Krishan) was the first RFA (OS) 27/1997 Page 1 defendant in the suit for partition filed by the first respondent, Hari Krishan (hereafter referred to as the p...
Tarekeswar Prasad and Others Vs. Union of India Through Secretary (Pos ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) 1. These are all inter-connected cases, hence these are being disposed of by this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, facts of OA-1410/2012 are being discussed below:- 2.1 The applicants has sought the following relief:- (i) quash and set aside the impugned memo dated the memo dated 13.03.2012 (Annexure-A-1) and 25.04.2012 (Annexure-A-1A) with all consequential benefits including reinstatement, salary seniority etc. (ii) May also pass any further order(s), direction(s) as be deemed just and proper to meet the ends of justice. 2.2 Brief facts of the case are that the respondents issued an advertisement on 20.08.2010 for conducting recruitment for the post of Postal Assistants. The applicant applied for the same and went through the selection process. She was declared selected on 19.04.2011 and was asked to join In House training which was scheduled to commence w.e.f. 25.04.2011. The applicant completed the said training and was thereafter sent ...
United India Insurance Co Ltd Vs. Amaratta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.A.175/2007 % Judgment reserved on:6. h March, 2013 Judgment delivered on:4. h April, 2013 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rajesh Dwivedi, Adv. for Mr. A.K. De, Adv. versus AMARATTA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Jai Prakash, Adv. for R1 to R5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 22.11.2006 whereby ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation against the respondent no. 6 driver, respondent no. 8 (current owner of the offending vehicle) and the present appellant.2. The present appellant was directed to pay the compensation amount by the ld. Tribunal and if any civil suit accrued in favour of the appellant being owner of the vehicle and against respondent nos. 6 & 8, in that eventuality, the appellant is at liberty to take action against the above mentioned respondents.3. The facts of the case in hand are very peculiar in nat...
Pokhrayan Alums and Chemicals (P) Ltd. Vs. Delhi Jal Board
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1281/2008 & IAs No 7953/2008, 11289-91/2008, 142/2010 POKHRAYAN ALUMS AND CHEMICALS (P) LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through Ms. Pallavi Parmar, Adv. versus DELHI JAL BOARD Through Mr. Suhaas Joshi, Adv. ..... Defendant Date of Decision:4. h April, 2013 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) IA No.11289/2008 1. Present application has been filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on behalf of the defendant-Delhi Jal Board.2. In the present application it is stated that the plaintiff entered into three contractual agreements dated 22nd March, 1994, 31st May, 1996 and 3rd February, 2000 with the defendant for supply of Alumina Ferric Works. The arbitration clause contained in one of the agreements dated 3rd February, 2000 is reproduced herein below: In case of dispute between the parties, it is agreed that all the disputes of any nature will be settled by arbitration in terms of the arbi...
- ‹ Prev
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- Next ›
- Last »