Delhi Court May 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.
Hari Chand Vs. Uoi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on :21. 05.2013 Judgment pronounced on :29. 05.2013 LA.APP. 128/2004 HARI CHAND ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Satpal Singh, Adv. versus UOI Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms. K. Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, advs. for R1/UOI /LAC Mr. Pawan Mathur, Adv. for DDA LA.APP. 129/2004 SIRYA ..... Appellant Through: versus Mr. Satpal Singh, Adv. UOI Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms. K. Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, advs. for R1/UOI /LAC Mr. Pawan Mathur, Adv. for DDA LA.APP. 192/2004 JAGMAL(DECD.)THR.LR'S Through: versus ..... Appellant Mr. Satish Kumar Verma, Adv. UOI & ANR Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms. K. Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, advs. for R1/UOI /LAC Mr. Pawan Mathur, Adv. for DDA LA.APP. 193/2004 CHANDER MAL & ORS. Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Satish Kumar Verma, Adv. versus UOI & ANR. Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms. K. Kaomudi Kiran Pathak...
Shiv Cahran Vs. Uoi and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on :21. 05.2013 Judgment pronounced on :29. 05.2013 LA.APP. 128/2004 HARI CHAND ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Satpal Singh, Adv. versus UOI Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms. K. Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, advs. for R1/UOI /LAC Mr. Pawan Mathur, Adv. for DDA LA.APP. 129/2004 SIRYA ..... Appellant Through: versus Mr. Satpal Singh, Adv. UOI Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms. K. Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, advs. for R1/UOI /LAC Mr. Pawan Mathur, Adv. for DDA LA.APP. 192/2004 JAGMAL(DECD.)THR.LR'S Through: versus ..... Appellant Mr. Satish Kumar Verma, Adv. UOI & ANR Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms. K. Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, advs. for R1/UOI /LAC Mr. Pawan Mathur, Adv. for DDA LA.APP. 193/2004 CHANDER MAL & ORS. Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Satish Kumar Verma, Adv. versus UOI & ANR. Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms. K. Kaomudi Kiran Pathak...
Usha Dixit Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:29. 05.2013 W.P.(C) 5645/2010 + USHA DIXIT ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Ashok Chaitanya, Advocate. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Through ..... Respondent Mr. M.K. Singh, Advocate for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(ORAL) The husband of the petitioner, namely, Late Sh. Praksh Dixit got himself registered for allotment of a plot from DDA under its Rohini Residential Scheme. Since he had got himself registered for allotment of a plot under MIG category, his income as per the eligibility condition should have been between Rs.12,000 to Rs.24,000/- per annum in the relevant year, i.e., 1980-81. Along with the registration application, he submitted a certificate issued by Jain Sammopasak Senior Secondary School certifying that his total salary, excluding HR Allowance during 1980-81 which was the relevant period for the purpose of determination of income was Rs.11201.60. The said certificate did no...
Kamlesh Sharma Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Decision:29. 05.2013 W.P.(C) 3680/2013 KAMLESH SHARMA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Dillip Singh, Mr Govind Lal Sharma and Ms Taranum, Advs versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .... Respondent Through: Mr Rajiv Bansal, Mr Devvrat Singh Raghav and Mr Parambir Singh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner before this Court got herself registered with allotment of an LIG plot under Rohini Residential Scheme of DDA. In a draw held on 21.09.2005, a plot bearing No. 772, Pocket-II, Block-A, Sector 30 of Rohini was allotted to her and a demand-cum-allotment letter dated 3/7.10.2005 was issued to her, requiring her to deposit the amount mentioned therein. The petitioner deposited the amount demanded by DDA in respect of the aforesaid allotment. However, possession of the said plot was not handed over to her. Vide letter dated 02.02.2012, the respondent-DDA informed the petitioner that since she ...
Sirya Vs. Uoi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on :21. 05.2013 Judgment pronounced on :29. 05.2013 LA.APP. 128/2004 HARI CHAND ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Satpal Singh, Adv. versus UOI Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms. K. Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, advs. for R1/UOI /LAC Mr. Pawan Mathur, Adv. for DDA LA.APP. 129/2004 SIRYA ..... Appellant Through: versus Mr. Satpal Singh, Adv. UOI Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms. K. Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, advs. for R1/UOI /LAC Mr. Pawan Mathur, Adv. for DDA LA.APP. 192/2004 JAGMAL(DECD.)THR.LR'S Through: versus ..... Appellant Mr. Satish Kumar Verma, Adv. UOI & ANR Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms. K. Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, advs. for R1/UOI /LAC Mr. Pawan Mathur, Adv. for DDA LA.APP. 193/2004 CHANDER MAL & ORS. Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Satish Kumar Verma, Adv. versus UOI & ANR. Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms. K. Kaomudi Kiran Pathak...
M/S. Zoom ??? Toshali Sands Consortium Vs. Indian Railway Catering and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on:9. h May, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on:29. h May, 2013 % + LPA No.170/2012 M/s. ZOOM TOSHALI SANDS CONSORTIUM ...Appellant Through : Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Rajiv Kapur and Ms. Vatsala Rai, Adv. VERSUS INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING & TOURISM CORPORATION LTD. Respondents Through: Mr. Saurav Agarwal along with Mr. Vipul Sharde, Advs. CORAM :HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.1. In the present appeal, the appellant impugnes the order dated 15.11.2011.2. The brief facts of the writ petition giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondents invited sealed bids from 14.2.2007 to 06.3.2007 for developing, operating and maintaining budget hotel at Bhubaneshwar through private participation. Annexure 7 to the bid document is stated to contain a draft agreement, which was to be executed by the parties.3. The last date of submission of bids was 08.3.2007. After opening the ...
Jai Pal Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2013
$-14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: May 29, 2013 + W.P.(C) 3665/2013 JAI PAL SINGH Represented by: .... Petitioner Mr.G.Srivastava, Advocate versus DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat and Ms.Latika Choudhary, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. As per the decision pronounced by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 11440/2011, if a person has not completed 10 years service, pension cannot be granted. This is what the Supreme Court had to say in para Nos.22 to 26 of its decision passed in Civil Appeal No.11440/2011, DTC Vs. Lillu Ram which are reproduced as under:- 22. The minimum qualifying service which is required for earning pensionary benefits finds place in Rule 49 of the Pension Rules. For the W P (C) 3665/2013 1 of 5 sake of convenience, Rule 49 is reproduced hereinbelow:49. Amount of pension.- (1) in the case of gov...
Securities and Exchange Board of India (Trust Pet. N Vs. Crb Capitalma ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2013
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CO. APPL. NOS. 1143/2003, 1144/2009, 1145/2009, 1153/2009, 1767/2009, 200/2010, 201/2010, 712/2010, 1941/2010 & 782/2012, 783/2012 & 913/2012 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 379/2009 SECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA (TRUST PET. NO.3/1997) ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Neeraj Malhotra & Mr. Shailendra Singh, Advocates Versus CRB CAPITAL MARKETS LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sudhanshu Batra, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Bhuvan Gugnani, Adv. for R-1, 2 & 3. Mr. Arunabh Chaudhary, Mr. Atanu Chakraborty, & Mr. Gainilung Panmei, Mr. Dorjee Karma, Advocates for Indian Infotech & Software Ltd. Mr. A.N. Haksar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shiv Sapra & Ms. Deeksha Khurana, Advocate for Sofear Global in CA Nos.1145/2009 and 1941/2010 Mr. Arvind Kr. Gupta, Advocate for applicants in CA Nos.1153/2009 & 1767/2009 Mr. Sumesh Dhawan & Mrs. Vatsala Kak Panda, Advocates for applicant in CA 913/2012 Mr. M.R. Shamshad, Advocate for applicant in CA No.1144/2009. CORAM: HON'...
S.K. Chauhan Vs. Rahis and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.A. 659/2006 % Judgment reserved on:15. h May, 2013 Judgment delivered on:29. h May, 2013 S.K. CHAUHAN ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Anil Aggarwal and Mr. Puneet Aggarwal, Advs. versus RAHIS AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. D.K. Sharma, Adv. for R3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgement dated 28.04.2006, whereby Ld. Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.7,60,865/- with interest @ 6% per annum.2. Vide the instant appeal appellant is seeking enhancement of the compensation amount on the ground that due the accident in question appellants right arm got amputated and his right leg was fractured and was kept in a Cast. Brace-fitting was done for three months. His Fiat car was also totally damaged in the accident.3. In support of the claim, the appellant examined himself as PW2 wherein he stated that when he reached Village-Baheri on Roorkee Roa...
israel Military Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2013
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on:06. 02.2013 Judgment delivered on:29. 05.2013 + WP(C) 2620/2012 ISRAEL MILITARY INDUSTRIES LTD. .....Petitioner Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Advocates appeared in this case: For the Petitioner: Mr Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr Ajay Bhargava, Mr Darpan Wadhwa, Mr Susmit Pushkar, Ms Priyanbada Mishra and Mr Anchit Oswal, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr Rajeeve Mehra, Additional Solicitor General with Ms Inderjeet Sidhu & Mr Ashish Virmani, Advocates with Mr. K.C. Sharma, Director, OFB. CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J WP(C) 2620/2012 & CM No. 5630-32/2012 FACTS/BACKGROUND 1 The petitioner before me, i.e., Israeli Military Industries Ltd. (in short IMI) is a company, which is wholly owned by the Government of Israel and incorporated under the laws of Israel. IMI is aggrieved by an order dated 05.03.2012, issued by the Ordinance Factory Board (in short OFB), i.e., respondent no.2. T...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »