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.
Pushpa Builders Ltd Vs. Vaish Cooperative Adarsh Bank Ltd and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-2013
$~11 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:02. 04.2013 EFA(OS) 31/2010 PUSHPA BUILDERS LTD ..... Appellant versus VAISH COOPERATIVE ADARSH BANK LTD & ANR ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Ms Rekha Palli and Ms Shagun Sharma, Advs. : Mr Rahul Gupta, Mr Kamal Mehta and Mr Lalit Gupta, Advs. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.07.2010 passed by a learned single judge of this Court in Ex.P.180/1997. It is unfortunate that the execution proceedings have taken such a long time and that the judgment debtor has been able to stall the proceedings and to avoid making payment under the preliminary decree as also to prevent execution of the final decree.2. One of the issues that has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the preliminary decree dated 21.02.1992 directed ...
Jagbir Singh Vs. the Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-2013
G. George Paracken: 1. The Applicant in this Original Application has challenged the impugned Annexure A-1 Memo NO.F-1/IV-2/93 dated 29.03.2008 issued by the Sr. Suptd. Of Post Offices, North Division, Delhi imposing upon him the penalty of removal from service with immediate effect and the Annexure A-2 Memo No.Staff/H-1/25/P/2008 dated 26.03.2010 issued by the Director Postal Services (O) Delhi Circle, New Delhi rejecting his appeal filed against the aforesaid order of punishment. 2. Facts in this case are that the Applicant was put off duty vide Annexure A-3 order dated 17.02.1994 on the ground that disciplinary and criminal proceedings were pending against him with the further stipulation that he will not be entitled for any allowance for the period he remains so. The said order reads as under:- Thereas a disciplinary criminal proceedings against Shri Jagbir Singh Extra Departmental Branch Post Master Auchandi Extra Departmental Branch Post Office Delhi-39 are pending. Now, therefor...
Mrs. Sushma Rani JaIn Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Chief Secretar ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-2013
Sudhir Kumar, Member, J. 1. The applicant of this O.A. argued this case in person before us. She is aggrieved by the respondents having denied her the benefit of the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme, introduced for the Central Government Civilian employees w.e.f 19.05.2009, and adopted by the Government of NCT of Delhi (NCTD, in short), Department of Education subsequently. She is before this Tribunal praying for the following reliefs: 1) The Respondent may be directed to release all MACP III benefits already granted vide their MACP Order dated 25.03.2010 and consequential increase in financial allowances etc. immediately i.e. within reasonable time schedule which may be allowed by the Honble Bench from date of order. 2) The Respondents may be directed to issue orders for revision of all Retirement Benefits [Gratuity, Leave Salary, Pension and Commutation of Pension etc] immediately, i.e., within reasonable time schedule which may be allowed by the Honble Bench from ...
Nighat Parveen Vs. Mcd and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: March 20, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: April 01, 2013 + W.P.(C) 3769/2012 NIGHAT PARVEEN .....Petitioner Represented by: Mrs.Jyoti Singh, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Manjeet Singh, Ms. Tinu Bajwa, Ms.Depalli, Advocates. versus MCD & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Ajay Arora, Advocate with Mr.Kapil Dutta, Advocate for R-1 & 2. Mr.Raj Shekhar Rao, Advocate with Mr.E.V.Venugopal and Mr. Anandna Handa, Advocates for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi made appointments to the post of Unani Hakim after conducting interviews on April 10, 17 and 19, in the year 1989. A select panel of 04 Unani Hakim was prepared, in order of merit, as under:(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) 2. Dr.Nighat Parveen (petitioner) Dr.Sohail Ahmed Farooqui Dr.Salma Khatoon Dr.Muzayyana Khatoon (respondent No.3) The petitioner was at Sl.No.1of the se...
Sh. Badan Lal Vs. Sh. Rajesh Gullah
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:01. 04.2013 + RFA (OS) 17/2013, C.M. APPL. 1497/2013 (Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act) SH. BADAN LAL ..... Appellant Through : Sh. B.D. Sharma, Advocate. versus SH. RAJESH GULLAH ..... Respondent Through : Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % C.M. APPL. 1497/2013 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay is condoned. C.M. Appl. 1497/2013 is allowed in the above terms. RFA (OS) 17/2013 1. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by a judgment and decree dated 09.08.2012 by which the learned Single Judge invoked the power under Order XII Rule 6, CPC and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff (respondent in the present case) for Rs.24 lakhs with interest.2. Briefly, the facts are that the plaintiff/respondent in the present case claimed a decree for Rs.24 lakhs with interest, stating that he and the defendant had frien...
Mcd Vs. Suman Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : March 19, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on : April 01, 2013 + WP(C) 6827/2010 MCD Represented by: .....Petitioner Mr.Gaurang Kanth, Advocate. versus SUMAN DEVI Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Sidharth Joshi and Mr.Vivek Vibhushah, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. The respondent was offered appointment on October 17, 1995, as an Assistant Teacher under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. She was to be on probation for 2 years. The relevant portion of the letter offering appointment to the respondent read as under:1. Probation period shall be for two years.2. The appointment is purely temporary and the appointee or the appointing authority can terminate the same without disclosing any reason by one months prior notice or one months pay in lieu thereof, nevertheless the right to terminate the same immediately on the expiry of notice period or p...
State of Haryana Represented By: Its Chief Secreta Vs. Umesh Nanda and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : February 25, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on : April 01, 2013 + W.P.(C) 6735/2011 UNION OF INDIA ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.R.V.Sinha and Mr.A.S.Singh, Advocates. versus UMESH NANDA & ANR. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Rohit Sharma and Mr.Amarjeet Singh, Advocates for R-1. Mr.Yashpal Rangi and Mr.Manjit Singh, Advocates for R-2. AND W.P.(C) 6736/2011 UNION OF INDIA ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.R.V.Sinha and Mr.A.S.Singh, Advocates. versus UMESH NANDA & ANR. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Rohit Sharma and Mr.Amarjeet Singh, Advocates for R-1. Mr.Yashpal Rangi, Advocate for R-2. AND W.P.(C) 8121/2011 STATE OF HARYANA REPRESENTED BY: ITS CHIEF SECRETARY .... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Yashpal Rangi, Advocate. Versus UMESH NANDA AND ANR WP(C) 6735, 6736, 8121/2011 ..... Respondents Page 1 of 19 Represented by: Mr.Rohit Sharma and Mr.Amarjeet Singh, Advocates for R-1. Mr.R.V.Sinha and Mr.A.S.Singh...
Dharam Singh @ Binder Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Crl. A. No. 269/2005 Date of Decision:1. t April, 2013 + # ! DHARAM SINGH @ BINDER ....Appellant Through: Shri Randhir Jain, Advocate Versus $ STATE ....Respondent Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN JUDGMENT P.K.BHASIN, J: The present appeal has been preferred by the appellantaccused against the judgment dated 31.01.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 452/307 of Indian Penal Code (IPC in short) and the order dated 10.03.2005 whereby he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and also to pay fine of Rs.500/-, with a default stipulation, for the conviction under Section 307 IPC and to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.200/-, with a default stipulation, for his conviction under Section 452 IPC.2. Briefly stated, facts of the case as culled out from the FIR and prosecution evidence are tha...
Sh. Om Braham Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.3136/1995 % April 01, 2013 SH. OM BRAHAM Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Sandeep Khatri, Advocate. versus FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for respondent No.1. 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 one Sh. Om Braham who was an employee of the respondent No.1-Food Corporation of India (FCI) seeking the relief that the petitioner be given retirement and terminal benefits which would be admissible to the employees of the Central Government, Ministry of Agriculture, Food Department and not of the employer/respondent No.1.2. The facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 came into existence by virtue of Food Corporations Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In the Act there was a provision of Section 12A which provided for transfer of government employees who were doin...
Diwakar Sharma Vs. Cbi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % W.P.(CRL.) 818/2010 Date of Decision:1. t April, 2013 + # ! DIWAKAR SHARMA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Sudhanshu Batra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev Ralli & Mr. S.D. Singh, Advocates versus $ CBI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Narender Mann, Spl. P.P. for CBI with Mr. Devendra Dedha, Advocate AND % # ! CRL.M.C. 3030/2011 DIWAKAR SHARMA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Sudhanshu Batra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev Ralli & Mr. S.D. Singh, Advocates versus $ CBI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Narender Mann, Spl. P.P. for CBI with Mr. Devendra Dedha, Advocate * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN ORDER P.K.BHASIN, J: Four decades back the Apex Court of the country had in a labour matter (D.P. Maheshwari vs. Delhi Admn. & Ors.,1983 SCC (4)293) expressed its strong disapproval of the dilatory tactics being adopted by the employers by raising preliminary objections before the industrial courts while defending labour disputes with the intention of d...
- ‹ Prev
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 58
- 59
- 60
- Next ›
- Last »