Delhi Court July 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.
Danish Habib Khan Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Decision:29. 07.2013 W.P.(C) 4741/2013 & CM 10821/2013 DANISH HABIB KHAN Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Rana Ranjit Singh, Mr. Jaswant Singh and Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Archana Gaur, Adv. for R-1/UOI. Mr. Amitesh Kumar and Ms. Mamta Tiwari, Advs. for UGC. Ms. Ekta K. Sikri and Mr. Sudeep Dey, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(ORAL) The petitioner before this Court appeared in the National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET), 2013, conducted for admission to MBBS Course. The petitioner claims to have secured 95.956 percentile in the said test. He applied for admission to respondent-Jamia Hamdard University in terms of the information bulletin and prospectus for the year 2013-2014. The result of NEET was published on the website on 5.6.2013 and the petitioner received an SMS Alert from the respondentJamia Hamdard University on 7.6.2013 re...
M/S. Shivam Enterprises Vs. M/S. Creation Point
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
* + THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI IAs. 3421, 3407 & 3408/2013 in CS(OS) 2693/2012 Date of Decision:29. 07.2013 PLAINTIFF M/S. SHIVAM ENTERPRISES Through: Mr.Rajat Wadhwa, Adv. Versus RESPONDENT M/S. CREATION POINT Through: Mr.A.K.Sakhuja,Mr.Puneet Saini, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J.(Oral) IA 3408/2013 (u/S 5 of Limitation Act), IA 3407/2013 (u/O 3.Rule 4 CPC for putting in appearance) & IA 3421/2013 (under Order 37 Rule 7 read with Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC seeking setting aside of ex parte decree dated 7.12.2012 1. These applications have been filed on behalf of the defendant seeking filing of appearance and also leave to defend as also condonation of delay in seeking these reliefs.2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery under Order 37 CPC, which came to be decreed under Order 37 Rule 2(3) CPC on 7.12.2012 on account of the defendant having failed to file appearance. The plaintiff has contested these applications. It is a...
Mohinder Sharma Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1004/2013 Date of Decision:29. h July, 2013 MOHINDER SHARMA Through ..... Petitioner Ms. Nikita Sharma, Advocate versus STATE Through ..... Respondent Mr. Saleem Ahmed, ASC for State with Mr. Hemant Kumar, Advocate and SI Vijay, P.S Subhash Place. CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking parole for a period of three months on the ground for filing of SLP before the Honble Supreme Court and to re-establish social ties with family members.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner intends to file an SLP before the Supreme Court against the order of this Court. Apart from this, the petitioner wants to re-establish social ties with family members. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will not misuse the liberty of parole an...
Kamal Mohan Soni Vs. Poonam Arora and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on: July 29, 2013 + C.R.P. 94/2013 & CM No.7619/2013 KAMAL MOHAN SONI Through ..... Petitioner Mr.T.N. Razdan, Adv. with Mr.P.P.N. Razdan and Ms.Smriti Razdan, Advs. versus POONAM ARORA & ORS. Through ..... Respondents None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC for quashing the order dated 12th April, 2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made only one submission that the compromise deed was not signed by all the parties particularly the same does not bear the signature of Smt.Madhu Kiran Malhotra. However, learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the compromise deed was signed by his client namely Kamal Mohan Soni.2. The trial court by order dated 10 th November, 2010 decreed the suit in terms of the compromise. Smt.Poonam Arora on 6 th June, 2011 filed an execution petition as decree holder aga...
Prem Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
$~R-34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: July 29, 2013 + W.P.(C) 7296/2001 PREM SINGH Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.V.Sudheer, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Kumar Rajesh Singh, Advocate for R-1 & 2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and at the outset note that inappropriate expressions have been used in the pleadings which have found a reflection in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The expressions do not bring out the legal issue which arises for consideration.2. Everybody has been referring to a Combined Seniority List in the context of who would hold the post of an Assistant Manager, ignoring that Combined Seniority List have to be prepared of all persons holding same post and we cannot have a Combined Seniority List of persons holding different posts. Thus, a reference in the...
Pushpal Chander Bhaskar Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 84/2003 Reserved on:2. d May, 2013 Decided on:29. h July, 2013 % PUSHPAL CHANDER BHASKAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. M.L. Yadav, Adv. versus STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA 1 The Appellant lays a challenge to the judgment dated 30th January, 2003 whereby he has been convicted for offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the PC Act) and the order on sentence dated 31 st January, 2003 whereby he has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 8000/- on each count. He was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 months on each count in default of payment of fine.2. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the story of the prosecution is without any basis. The case of the prosecution is that the ...
Jitendra Singh ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on :25. 07.2013 Judgment pronounced on :29. 07.2013 + W.P.(C) 3950/2013 JITENDRA SINGH ORS. Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Rakesh Tikku, Sr. Adv. with Mr. T.S. Ahuja and Mr. Vivek Ojha, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Rajiv Mehra, ASG with Mr.Neeraj Chaudhari, CGSC and Mr. Ravjyot Singh, Advs for UOI with Dr. Srinivas, ADGME and Dr. Sherwal, Dy. DGME Mr. Ashish Kumar, Adv. for MCI Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Adv. for University of Delhi Dr. Rakesh Gosain, Adv. for Respondent no. 2 Mr. Mukul Talwar, Mr. S. Mohapatra, Advs. for GGSIP University CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN V.K. JAIN, J.Regulation 9 of the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, as amended vide Postgraduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations 2010, stipulated that in order to be eligible for admission to any postgraduate course in a particular academic year, it shall be necessary for a candidate to obtain minim...
Charanjeet Kaur Vs. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.6518/2010 29th July, 2013 % CHARANJEET KAUR Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Baljit Singh, Advocate with Mr. Ajai Kumar, Advocate. versus GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. S.K. Garg, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Rajiv Aneja, Advocate with Ms. Jyoti Taneja, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner-Ms. Charanjeet Kaur prays for the relief of grant of arrears of pay for the period from 2.4.2007 to 31.3.2008 on account of implementation of recommendations of Sixth Pay Commission.2. It is not in issue that the Director of Education/respondent No.2 has by its order dated 11.2.2009 directed implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission Report with respect to schools in Delhi. Para 8 of the order dated 11.2.2009 directs payment to teachers and other emp...
Commissioner of Police Vs. Akhileshwar Yadav
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
$~1 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on July 12, 2013 Judgment Delivered on July 29, 2013 + W.P.(C) 6015/2010 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ..... Petitioner Represented by: Ms.Prerna Kumari, Advocate versus AKHILESHWAR YADAV Represented by: ..... Respondent Ms.Jyoti Singh, Senior Advocate instructed by Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. The Commissioner of Police is aggrieved by the order dated December 22, 2009 allowing OA No.252/2008 filed by the respondent and also by the order dated July 19, 2010 dismissing RA No.172/2010 filed by the Commissioner of Police seeking review of the order dated December 22, 2009.2. Working as a Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police and In-charge of Sarita Vihar Police Chowki a case of a student of Class-IV of Delhi Public School Vasant Kunj who was kidnapped for ransom was successfully investigated and the child recovered by a team headed by the resp...
Ajit Singh Vs. Cbi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:26. h July, 2013 Pronounced on:29. h July, 2013 + Crl. M.C.4187/2011 AJIT SINGH Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Dinesh Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amish Dabas, Advocate versus CBI Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Sonia Mathur, Standing Counsel CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.1. By virtue of this Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks to challenge an order dated 08.11.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge whereby charges for the offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 419/420/467/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988(the P.C. Act) was ordered to be framed against the Petitioner.2. The prosecution was launched against the Petitioner on the basis of allegations, which can be culled out from paras 1 and 2 of the impugned order hereunder:1. The case of the CBI...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »