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.
Ram Prakash Vs. the Secretary and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: April 29, 2013 + W.P.(C) 2233/2012 RAM PRAKASH Represented by: .....Petitioner Ms.Pragnya Routray, Advocate versus THE SECRETARY & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.R.V.Sinha and Mr.A.S.Singh, Advocates for R-1 to R-3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. The enrolment form required to be filled up by the petitioner, inter-alia, sought following information:Whether candidate has been guilty for any offence by the court? If yes, the guilt and full particulars of conviction. And we understand this to mean that the information sought was whether the candidate has been found guilty by a court for having committed an offence. If yes, the nature of the offence and conviction.2. Suffice would it be to state that information sought was not : Whether the candidate was ever accused for having committed an offence? 3. It is not in dispute that the re...
Prakash Chauhan Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: April 29, 2013 + W.P.(C) 7402/2012 PRAKASH CHAUHAN Represented by: .....Petitioner Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms.Prabhsahay Kaur, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Charge against the petitioner was of mutating property No.15, Rajpur Road in the name of private persons after 20 years of the death of the recorded owner. Additionally, of not ensuring that the Zonal Inspector make the mandatory visit to inspect the property recording status of who is in possession of the property since mutation was applied after 20 years of the death of the recorded owner.2. It so happened that in the interregnum the property came under the ownership of the State of Rajasthan. After mutation was effected in the municipal record, when State of Rajasthan objected the same was canc...
Ramesh Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
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) 2730/2013 RAMESH KUMAR Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS Represented by: None ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.(Oral) 1. The challenge in the Writ Petition is to the order dated April 27, 2012 passed in O.A. No.1295/2012, and to the order dated December 10, 2012 disposing of R.A. No.326/2012 and M.A. No.3333/2012 in O.A. No.1295/2012. The Tribunal has dismissed O.A. No.1295/2012 filed by the petitioner and the application seeking review of the order dated April 272. The brief facts necessary to understand the issue in question are that while working as an Inspector (Investigation), P.S Lajpat Nagar (South District), New Delhi, the petitioner was suspended on August 07, 2007 and thereafter departmental enquiry was initiated against him. The summary of allega...
Commissioner of Police Vs. Mukesh Kumar
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...
Shri Bhupinder Singh Vs. M/S Hill Elliott and Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
34 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 2400/2008 & I.As. 13983/2008 AND 9908/2009 SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bahl, Advocate with Mr. Kishan Rawat Ms. Ruchika Singh and Mr. Rajan Narain, Advocates. versus M/S HILL ELLIOTT & CO. LTD. ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jagdeep Anand, Advocate. Date of Decision:29. h April, 2013 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J (Oral):1. Present suit has been filed for recovery of possession, rent and mesne profits as well as damages and permanent injunction.2. The facts of the present case are that plaintiff is the owner and landlord of property bearing No. S-323, Panchshila Park, New Delhi-110017 admeasuring 500 sq. yds (hereinafter referred to as suit property).3. On 16th October, 1982, a Lease Deed was executed by virtue of which the entire suit property comprising the ground floor, first floor, garage as well as lawn was leased out to the def...
Ms. Shikha Mishra and anr Vs. S Krishna Murthy
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:29.04.2013 CM(M) 451/2013 MS SHIKHA MISHRA & ANR ..... Petitioners Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Attin Shankar Rastori, Adv. versus S KRISHNAMURTHY Through ..... Respondent Ms. Swati, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) CM No. 6705/2013 (Exemption) 1 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Cav. No. 384/2013 2 Counsel for the respondent has entered appearance. Caveat stands discharged. CM(M) 451/2013 3 The petitioners are aggrieved by the findings returned in the impugned order dated 21.03.2013 vide which their right to crossexamine PW-1 stood closed. Submission is that the petitioners have applied for the original documents which are sought to be confronted to PW-1 and the next date given by the Court is 15.05.2013; it was only in these circumstances that PW-1 could not be cross-examined as the original documents were not available. 4 Record shows that the two suit...
Mangal SaIn and anr. Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi 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) No.2680/2013 MANGAL SAIN & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through:Mr.Anip Sachthey with Mr.Mohit Paul, Advocate. Versus NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through:Mr.T.Mitra for Ms.Anjana Gosain, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(ORAL) CM No (to be numbered)(u/O VI Rule 17 CPC) This is an application for amendment of the petition. The petitioners want to amend the petition so as to implead Shri Dev Dutt Sharma and others as party to the petition. Heard. Allowed. The amended petition is taken on record. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) No.2680/2013 Mr.Dev Dutt Sharma and some other persons filed a suit under Section 81, 84 and 86A of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 before the SDM/Revenue Assistant, seeking ejectment of respondents No.1 and 2 in that suit, namely, Mangal Sain and Ravinder Sain, from the land comprised in Khasra No.37/18/1 min meas...
ifci Limited Vs. the General Secretary All India Ifc Employees Asso
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: Judgment delivered on: % + 21.02.2013 29.04.2013 W.P.(C) 1991/2010 and C.M. Nos.3988/2010, 5327/2010 & 12294/2010 IFCI LIMITED Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Dinkar Singh, Advocate versus THE GENERAL SECRETARY ALL INDIA IFC EMPLOYES ASSO. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. S. Janani, Advocate CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI JUDGMENT VIPIN SANGHI, J.1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner IFCI Ltd. (IFCI for short) seeks the quashing of the award dated 16.10.2009 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (CGIT) in I.D. No. 7/2006.2. By the impugned award dated 16.10.2009, the CGIT held that the scheme framed by the petitioner for appointment in clerical & subordinate cadres of dependents of deceased employees of IFCI formulated on 1.1.1979 is subsisting, and directed the petitioner to consider the requests of the 5 dependents of ex-employees of IFCI i.e. Naresh Kumar, Rak...
Satyapal Monga Vs. Delhi Developmennt Authority
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) 2902/2011 SATYAPAL MONGA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. N. Kinra, Adv. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENNT AUTHORITY ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Mr. Vaibhav Agnihotri and Ms. Niharika, Advs. for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(ORAL) The petitioner before this Court got himself registered with DDA for allotment of a residential flat under its New Pattern Residential Scheme, 1979 (for short NPRS-79). An MIG flat at Narela was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1993. Since the petitioner was not interested in accepting the aforesaid allotment, he got it cancelled and a letter dated 19.5.1993 was issued to him by DDA, informing him, with reference to his letter dated 23.4.1993 that the allotment made to him had been cancelled at his request.2. DDA came out with a policy in the year 2003 for including the names of the persons who had got the allotment cancelled, in ...
Sudha Vadehra Vs. Harsh Malhotra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Judgment:29.04.2013 CM(M) 249/2012 & CM No.3809/2012 (for stay) SUDHA VADEHRA Through versus ..... Petitioner Mr. Sidharth Yadav, Adv. HARSH MALHOTRA Through ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) 1 The petitioner is aggrieved by the findings returned in the impugned order dated 30.10.2011 vide which his application under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) had been dismissed. 2 Record shows that the present suit has been filed by the respondent seeking declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction. The petitioner before this Court is the legal representative of deceased defendant No.1. Deceased defendant No. 1 had filed a written statement. On an application filed by deceased defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, the suit filed by the plaintiff stood dismissed; the plaint had been rejected. An appeal...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »