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.
Anmol Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2013
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision :23. 05.2013 BAIL APPLN. 796/2013 ANMOL SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.K.K.Manan, Mr.Nipun Bhardweaj and Mr.Ankush Narang, Advocates. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Fizani Hussain, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI % PRATIBHA RANI, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner Anmol Singh is father of co-accused Kamal Nain @ Honey and Prabh Simran @ Money and they are facing trial in case FIR No.259/2012, under Sections 109/302/307/324 IPC, P.S. Hari Nagar. The bail application of the petitioner has earlier been dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide detailed order dated 06.05.2013.2. Notice of the application was issued to the State and status report has been filed by the State.3. On behalf of the petitioner, Mr.K.K.Manan, Advocate has submitted that the petitioner is 57 years old and a handicapped person. While referring to the contents of FIR, he submitted that even as per prosecution, the petitioner...
Atul Sharma and anr Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:6. h May, 2013 Date of Decision:23. d May, 2013 % + CRL. A. 142/2000 ATUL SHARMA & ANR Through: ..... Appellants Mr.K.B. Andley, Sr.Advocate with Mr. M. Shamikh, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Ms.Jasbir Kaur, APP CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR JUDGMENT R.V. EASWAR, J.:1. This is an appeal filed by Atul Sharma and Shashi Sharma against the judgment dated 26.02.2000 convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code as well as against the order dated 9.3.2000 sentencing both of them to RI for 6 years plus fine of `2,000/- and in default for a further period of RI for 8 months each under Section 306 and RI for 2 years plus a fine of `1,000/- in default to undergo RI for further period of 4 months under Section 498A.2. The appeal arises in the following circumstances. One Renu Sharma got married to Atul Sharma, one of the appellants herein, on 12th October, 1988. Af...
Neeraj Kumar Prasad Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2013
$~ 11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6396/2012 % Date of decision:23. d May, 2013 NEERAJ KUMAR PRASAD ..... Petitioner Through : Ms. Rekha Palli and Ms. Amrita Prakash, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J.(Oral) 1. Pursuant to the advertisement issued on 6th October, 2010 for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Stenographers) and Head Constable (Ministerial) in the Central Reserve Police Force, the petitioner had applied for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) as a OBC candidate, belonging to the caste Sonar.2. The petitioner contends that his application was made to respondent no.4 at Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh and was accompanied with all relevant documents. The petitioner has submitted that the documents were checked by the respondents on 12th March, 2011 as well as his physical measurement was verified. WP(C) No.6396/201...
Suman Singh Vs. Sanjay Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: May 09, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: May 23, 2013 + FAO 108/2013 SUMAN SINGH Represented by: .....Appellant Ms.Padmini Gupta, Advocate versus SANJAY SINGH Represented by: ..... Respondent Respondent in person FAO 109/2013 SUMAN SINGH Represented by: .....Appellant Ms.Padmini Gupta, Advocate versus SANJAY SINGH Represented by: ..... Respondent Respondent in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. On February 26, 1999, respondent Sanjay and appellant Suman got happily married and the two were blessed with a daughter born on June 15, 2002 followed by another bundle of delight, another daughter born on February 10, 2006.2. Unfortunately, relations soured with passage of time. Sanjay sought dissolution of the marriage alleging cruelty and Suman sought restitution of her conjugal rights.3. Both Sanjay and Suman reached the Court on July 19, 2010. It appears ...
Rakesh Behari, Ias Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on May 21, 2013 Judgment Delivered on May 23, 2013 + W.P.(C) 5663/2012 RAKESH BEHARI, IAS Represented by: ..... Petitioner Ms.Geeta Luthra, Sr. Adv., Mr.Sanjeev Sahay and Ms.Ashly Cherian, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Sumeet Pushkarna, CGSC, Mr.Gaurav Sharma and Mr.Rajesh Nagpal, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. Petitioner challenges the order dated November 14, 2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the Tribunal) dismissing CP No.264/2012 seeking enforcement of the order passed in his favour in OA No.178/2011, observing that the petitioner had the liberty to challenge the order passed by the respondents, which was alleged to be in violation of the order passed by the Tribunal allowing OA No.178/2011.2. The petitioner, who is a 1997 batch IAS Officer, being aggr...
Bazaz Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Roopwati and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2013
$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:23. d May, 2013 % + MAC.APP. 478/2010 BAZAZ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rajat Brar, Adv. versus ROOPWATI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Amitabh Jha, Adv. for R1 to R7. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 15.04.2010 whereby, the Ld. Tribunal while granting compensation has added 50% towards future prospects in favour of the respondents / claimants.2. The only issue, as has been argued by the counsel for the appellant, is that the Ld. Tribunal has wrongly granted 50% towards future prospects, whereas in the view of the dictum of Sarla Verma v. DTC and Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 12.which has been further affirmed by Full Bench Judgment of the Apex Court in case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Ors. 2013 IV AD (S.C.) 516, keeping in view the age of the deceased as 42 years at the time ...
Commissioner of Police Vs. Kuldeep Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2013
$~7 to 11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: May 23, 2013 + W.P.(C) 5592/2011 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Petitioner Represented by:Mr.V.K.Tandon and Mr.Yogesh Saini, Advocates versus IRSHAD ..... Respondent Represented by:Mr.Anil Singal, Advocate W.P.(C) 7820/2011 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ..... Petitioner Represented by:Mr.V.K.Tandon and Mr.Yogesh Saini, Advocates versus YOGESH KUMAR ..... Respondent Represented by:Mr.Vinay Kr.Sharma, Advocate W.P.(C) 7824/2011 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ..... Petitioner Represented by:Mr.V.K.Tandon and Mr.Yogesh Saini, Advocates versus ROHTAS SINGH W.P.(C) No.5592/2011 ..... Respondent W.P.(C) 8435/2011 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ..... Petitioner Represented by:Mr.V.K.Tandon and Mr.Yogesh Saini, Advocates versus SAMINDER KUMAR ..... Respondent Represented by:Mr.Anil Singal, Advocate W.P.(C) 456/2012 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ..... Petitioner Represented by:Mr.V.K.Tandon and Mr.Yogesh Saini, Advocates versus KULDEEP KUMAR ..... Resp...
Dtc and anr. Vs. Rajeshwari Shankar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.A. 442/2005 % Judgment reserved on:7. h May, 2013 Judgment delivered on:23. d May, 2013 DTC AND ANR. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. J.N. Aggarwal, Adv. versus RAJESHWARI SHANKAR AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Siddharth Yadav, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 06.12.2004 passed by the Ld. Tribunal whereby appellant/DTC was directed to pay a sum of Rs.16,93,000/- (Rs.17,43,000 Rs.50,000/- Paid towards interim compensation) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.2. Mr. J.N. Aggarwal, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that no witness was produced by the respondents / claimants to prove negligence of the driver of offending vehicle in question.3. If the negligence has not been proved, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation.4. On the second issue, Ld. Couns...
Commissioner of Police Vs. Saminder Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2013
$~7 to 11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: May 23, 2013 + W.P.(C) 5592/2011 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Petitioner Represented by:Mr.V.K.Tandon and Mr.Yogesh Saini, Advocates versus IRSHAD ..... Respondent Represented by:Mr.Anil Singal, Advocate W.P.(C) 7820/2011 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ..... Petitioner Represented by:Mr.V.K.Tandon and Mr.Yogesh Saini, Advocates versus YOGESH KUMAR ..... Respondent Represented by:Mr.Vinay Kr.Sharma, Advocate W.P.(C) 7824/2011 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ..... Petitioner Represented by:Mr.V.K.Tandon and Mr.Yogesh Saini, Advocates versus ROHTAS SINGH W.P.(C) No.5592/2011 ..... Respondent W.P.(C) 8435/2011 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ..... Petitioner Represented by:Mr.V.K.Tandon and Mr.Yogesh Saini, Advocates versus SAMINDER KUMAR ..... Respondent Represented by:Mr.Anil Singal, Advocate W.P.(C) 456/2012 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ..... Petitioner Represented by:Mr.V.K.Tandon and Mr.Yogesh Saini, Advocates versus KULDEEP KUMAR ..... Resp...
Khushbu Sharma Vs. Uoi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2013
$~ 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2916/2013 & CM No.5482/2013 Date of decision:23. d May, 2013 % KHUSHBU SHARMA Through : ..... Petitioner Mr. S.S. Pandey and Mr. H.S. Tiwari, Advs. versus UOI & ORS Through : ..... Respondents Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J.(Oral) 1. The writ petitioner in the instant writ petition has earned a degree of B.Tech (Instrumentations and Control) from a recognized university and is claiming that this degree is equivalent to the degree of B.Tech. (Electronics). The writ petition has been filed because the respondents have denied equivalence and therefore refused commission to the petitioner.2. The petitioner had applied for grant of Short Service Commission Women (Technical) 10 course of the Indian Army as well as for (Technical)-10 as she was holding a degree of Engineering in Instrumentation and Control stream pursuant to the WP(C) No.2916/2013 page 1 of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- Next ›
- Last »