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.
Joginder Singh Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :20. 05.2013 Decided on :23. 05.2013 + LPA 323/2013 JOGINDER SINGH Through ..... Appellant Mr.A.K.Bajpai, Advocate. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS Through ..... Respondent Mr.R.V.Sinha and Mr.P.K.Singh, Advocates for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.CM Nos. 7895-7896/2013 (exemption) Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. LPA 323/2013 and CM Nos. 7894/2013 (stay) and 7897/2013 1. The present appeal seeks to impugn the order dated 06.05.2013. The brief facts leading to the present writ petition is that the appellant has been working as Pump Operator in CPWD. On 03.09.1992, in the course of his employment, he was allotted a Government Quarter No. 24, Lodhi Road Complex. On 26.09.1992 he was allowed to switch the accommodation and in lieu of Quarter No. 24, Lodhi Road Complex, he was allotted Quarter No. 2125, Lodhi Road Complex, Delhi. However, since then it is the contention ...
Commissioner of Police Vs. Yogesh 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...
Mohd Jamal @ Ranjha Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:23. d May, 2013 + CRL.A. 391/2013 MOHD JAMAL @ RANJHA ..... Appellant Through: Mohd. Irfan, Advocate. versus STATE Through: .... Respondent Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. The Appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 20.02.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby although he was acquitted for the main offence, that is, under Section 307 IPC but he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 174-A IPC as he was declared a proclaimed offender during the trial of the Sessions Case No.186/2010 which was instituted on 15.05.2009.2. There is twofold contention raised on behalf of the Appellant. The firstly, that the process under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code (the Code) was ordered to be issued against the Appellant by an order dated 15.02.2010 passed by the learned ASJ; the process was a...
i.P.S. Ahluwalia Vs. C.B.i.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 453/2003 Reserved on:7. h March, 2013 Decided on:23. d May, 2013 % I.P.S. AHLUWALIA Through ..... Appellant Mr. Ashok Bhasin, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sunklan Porwal, Mr. Arav Kapoor, Mr. Anubhav Bhasin, Advs. versus C.B.I. Through ..... Respondent Mr. P.K. Sharma, Standing Counsel with Mr. Anil Kr. Singh, Adv. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA 1 By the present appeal the Appellant assails the judgment dated 7th July, 2003 convicting the Appellant for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the PC Act) and the order on sentence dated 8 th July, 2003 directing the Appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count.2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that statements of the complainant, his wife...
Mohd. Inam Vs. Sr. Divisional Manager and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2013
$~R-3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C) 6393/2002 23rd May, 2013 MOHD. INAM Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Shiv Prakash Pandey and Mr. Raghav Pandey, Advs. VERSUS SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER AND ORS. Through: .... Respondents Mr. Kamal Mehta, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. Irrespective of the prayer Clauses of the writ petition, on behalf of the petitioner the only relief pressed before me at the time of hearing is that petitioner on his re-appointment with the respondent No. 1 on 27.01.1993 should get the basic pay of Rs. 1410 and not the scale of Rs. 930-1410-2010 as granted by the appointment letter.2. On behalf of the petitioner to claim the benefit of the basic pay of Rs. 1410 reliance is placed upon the office order of the respondent No. 1 dated 16.03.1990 and the relevant portion of which reads as under: W.P.(C) 6393/2002 Page 1 The fixation of pay on absorption in the Class III pos...
Chijoke Smith Okpe and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON :23. d May, 2013 + CRL.A. 1093/2012 CHIJOKE SMITH OKPE & ANR. ..... Appellants Through Mr.J.S.Kushwaha, Advocate VERSUS STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. Appellants Chijoke Smith Okpe (A-1) and Marina (A-2) challenge judgment dated 11.06.2012 in Sessions Case No.09/2010 arising out of FIR No.73/2010 registered at Police Station Narcotics Cell by which they and Akhil Dass were convicted under Section 25A NDPS Act read with Section 29 NDPS Act. A-1 was sentenced to undergo RI for four years with fine of `20,000/- and A-2 was sentenced to RI for three years with fine of `10,000/-.2. Allegations against the appellants were that they and Akhil Dass entered into a criminal conspiracy for supply of controlled substance (ephedrine) and consequent to that A-1 and Akhil Dass were found exchanging the same with conscious possession of ephedrine. On 25.05.2010 ...
Jagmohan and Others Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Its Chief Secret ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2013
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A): These four applications were heard together, reserved for orders together, and are, therefore being disposed of through a common order. However, for the sake of convenience, we will take the facts from OA No.768/2012, which was filed earliest in point of time, and just mention differences, if any, with the other cases. OA No.768/2012 2. The applicant was appointed with the respondents on 09.12.1998 as Retainer Crew Conductor on temporary basis w.e.f. 10.12.1998 (Annexure A-2 of his OA). On 26.05.2004, the applicant was brought on monthly rates of pay w.e.f. 01.06.2004 in the pay scale of Rs.3200-85-4900. 3. In January 2005, 50% of the Dearness Allowance was merged into the basic pay, and the applicants pay was fixed @ Rs.4800/-, and his pay was subsequently properly re-fixed on subsequent dates of increments. On 29.08.2008, the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 (CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 in short) were notified, with the directions that the pay scale...
Gurdev Singh Vs. Punjab Pollution Control Board Through Its Chairman, ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2013
Swatanter Kumar, (Chairperson) 1. The Punjab Pollution Control Board (for short the Board) on 13th June, 2003, in exercise of its powers vested under Section 31-A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, (for short the Act) while issuing different directions, also directed the appellant to stop operating all its outlets and stop forthwith discharging any emissions from its industrial premises into environment while operating in the residential area. The relevant part of the order dated 13th June, 2003 reads as under: Whereas it is mandatory on the part of the industry to obtain the consent of the Board to establish u/s 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, as amended in 1987 before establishing the industry. Whereas it is mandatory on the part of the industry to obtain the consent to operate of the Board u/s 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, as amended in 1987 before operating the industry. Whereas it is mandatory...
Kumar Gorav Vs. Union of India Through the General Manager (Finance), ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2013
G George Paracken, Member (J) In this Case the Applicant was appointed as Multi Tasking Staff (MTS for short) in the office of the Respondents, namely, the General Manager (Finance), Postal Accounts Office, Delhi after having being sponsored by the Staff Selection Commission, vide Annexure A-2 order dated 13.12.2011. Among the terms and conditions of the aforesaid appointment, one of them was as under:- the appointment is purely on a temporary basis and will be governed by the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 as amended from time to time. The appointment can be terminated at any time under the said CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 without assigning any reasons. If you want to wish to resign the employment you will give notice in writing for a period of not less than one month of your intension of resign. 2. After having accepted the aforesaid terms and conditions in the said offer of appointment, the Applicant was taken on the strength of the Respondents as MTS with effect from 2...
Deepak Singh Yadav Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.5043/2012 & CM No.19745/2012 (Stay) % May 22, 2013 DEEPAK SINGH YADAV Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Deepak Anand and Mr. Ghanshyam Yadav, Advocates. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Through: ...... Respondents Mr. Prasouk Jain for Mr. B.V. Niren, CGSC for R-1. CORAM: HONBLE 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 the petitioner Mr. Deepak Singh Yadav, who had applied for the post of Junior Scientific Assistant as an OBC candidate with the respondent No.2/Central Pollution Control Board. On behalf of the petitioner, claim is laid to appointment to the subject post including by setting aside the selection of the successful candidates to respondent No.2 on the following grounds urged before me:(i) The respondent No.1 has given wrong marks to the petitioner i.e. wrongly proportionating the marks of the written test without scaling down appropriately the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- Next ›
- Last »