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.
Smt. Shiv Rani and ors. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.8315 /2010 23rd July, 2013 % SMT. SHIV RANI AND ORS. Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. C.S. Parashar, Advocate. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Megna Bherara, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. P.K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. Arvind Kumar Arora, Zone XI, Pitampura in person. CORAM: HON'BLE 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 four petitioners. The four petitioners are legal heirs of one Sh. Ramphal. Sh. Ramphal worked as a Gardener with the respondent No.2-school. The late Sh. Ramphal just before his retirement claimed certain dues for his entire service period of 17 years from the respondent No.2 on the ground that he was inadequately paid. Sh. Ramphal after receiving his retirement dues initiated proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and in ...
Raju Swami Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgement Reserved On: July 18, 2013 Judgement Delivered On: July 23, 2013 + CRL.A. 280/1998 RAJU JAMADAR Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Arun Kumar Srivastava, Advocate with Ms.Shalini Mediratta, Advocate. Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate, DHCLSC. versus STATE ..... Respondent Mr.Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel (Crl.). Represented by: CRL.A. 507/1998 RAJU SWAMI Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Vikas Gupta, Advocate with Ms.Swati Sukla, Advocate. versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel (Crl.) CRL.A. 598/1999 KAMAL KISHORE Represented by: Crl.A.280/98 & conn.matters .... Appellant Mr.Arun Kumar Srivastava, Advocate with Ms.Shalini Mediratta, versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel (Crl.) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. The three appellants, Raju Swami @ Raju Madrasi, Raju Jamadar and Kamal Kishor...
Kamal Kishore Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgement Reserved On: July 18, 2013 Judgement Delivered On: July 23, 2013 + CRL.A. 280/1998 RAJU JAMADAR Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Arun Kumar Srivastava, Advocate with Ms.Shalini Mediratta, Advocate. Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate, DHCLSC. versus STATE ..... Respondent Mr.Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel (Crl.). Represented by: CRL.A. 507/1998 RAJU SWAMI Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Vikas Gupta, Advocate with Ms.Swati Sukla, Advocate. versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel (Crl.) CRL.A. 598/1999 KAMAL KISHORE Represented by: Crl.A.280/98 & conn.matters .... Appellant Mr.Arun Kumar Srivastava, Advocate with Ms.Shalini Mediratta, versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel (Crl.) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. The three appellants, Raju Swami @ Raju Madrasi, Raju Jamadar and Kamal Kishor...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Parwana and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2013
$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:23. d July, 2013 % + MAC. APPEAL No. 841/2012 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Through: ..... Appellant Ms.Shantha Devi Raman and Mr.Sanjeet Ranjan, Advocates. Versus PARWANA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned award dated 02.06.2012, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted Rs.85,000/- as counsel fee.2. In addition to above, the learned Tribunal has passed stricture against Sh. R.P. Sharma, Deputy Manager of the appellant/Insurance Company.3. As regards the issue of counsel fee is concerned, the same has been decided by this Court in the case of ICICI Vs. Kanti Devi (2012) ILR 6 Delhi 711. In view of the dictum of this court, there is no provision in Motor Vehicles Act to grant counsels fee, therefore, the Ld. Tribunal has no power to grant the same.4...
Anand Singh and ors. Vs. University Grants Commission
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.4617 /2013 23rd July, 2013 % ANAND SINGH AND ORS. Through: ..... Petitioners Ms. Bhakti Pasrija, Advocate. versus UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Mamta Tiwari, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. persons Two identical cases on all respects of the present case i.e seeking regularization with respondent/University Grants Commission have been dismissed by me. First is the case of Kanishk Sharma and Ors. Vs. University Grants Commission and Ors. in W.P.(C) No.4071/2013 decided on 2.7.2013 and second is the case of Sushil Kumar and Ors. Vs. University Grants Commission in W.P.(C) No.4338/2013 decided on 10.7.2013. The second judgment which was decided was filed by the same counsel who appears before me in this third case.2. In the case of Sushil Kumar (supra) and which is identical with the present case, the following order wa...
Mrs. Meeta Chakraborty and ors Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2013
#22 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4919/2011 & CM APPL. 9981/2011, 10474-10475/2011 MRS. MEETA CHAKRABORTY AND ORS ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Anuj Castileno with Ms. Mrunal Buva, Advocates versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through Ms. Shobhna Takiar, Advocate for R-2/DDA. Mr. Parvinder Chauhan with Mr. Akhil Kumar, Advocates for R-3. Date of Decision:23. d July, 2013 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction restraining the respondents from demolishing C-38A, C-224, C-2/52A as well as other houses in Block B, C, C-2 and E, New Ashok Nagar, New Delh096. Petitioners have also prayed for regularisation of the site.2. Mr. Anuj Castileno, learned counsel for petitioners submits that structures constructed by the petitioners have been regularised by the Government of NCT of Delhi, Urban Development Department vide ...
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:23. 07.2013 ITR NO. 58/1997 DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD. ... Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner For the Respondent : Mr Ravi Mehta, Advocate : Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, ACJ 1.This income tax reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) raises the following five questions: (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the payment of additional cess and cess surcharge was not a tax or duty and as such the same was not covered within the provisions of section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the deposi...
Arignar Anna Engineering College Vs. the Indira Gandhi National Open U ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on Judgment pronounced on :10. 07.2013 :23. 07.2013 W.P.(C) 5789/2012 & CM Nos. 11883/12, 19116/12, 19217/12 HINDUSTAN AVIATION ACADEMY Through ..... Petitioner/ Mr. Roopansh Purohit, Adv. Versus THE INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY .... Respondent + Through Mr. Aly Mirza, Adv. W.P.(C) 6016/2012 & CM Nos.12378/2012, 19118 and 19218/12 INDIAN INSTITUTE FOR AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND ORS..... Petitioners Through Mr. Roopansh Purohit, Adv. Versus THE INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY .... Respondent Through + Mr. Aly Mirza, Adv. W.P.(C) 6021/2012 & CM Nos.12388/12 & 19117-19/12 DEHRADUN INSTITUTE FOR AEROSPACE ENGINEERING. .... Petitioners Through Mr. Roopansh Purohit, Adv. Versus THE INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY .... Respondent Through W.P(C) No. 5789/2012 & Others + W.P.(C) 6399/2012 & CM Nos.17043/2012 & 19224/2012 AGRAGMI VSM INSTITUTE OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY ....
Union of India Vs. Narender Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2013
$~R-20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: July 23, 2013 + W.P.(C) 5869/2001 UNION OF INDIA Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Somdutt Kaushik, Advocate. versus NARENDER SINGH Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Shanker Raju, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. The writ petition was dismissed on December 05, 2001 noting that the decision impugned has since been implemented by the petitioner and the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the respondent being set aside he has been reinstated in service. However, on a challenge before the Supreme Court, order dated December 05, 2001 was set aside with a direction that the writ petition be heard and decided on merits.2. The petition has come up for final hearing today. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.3. In a short and a cryptic decision dated November 21, 2000, allowing O.A.No.95/1998 the Tribunal has quashe...
Dinesh Kumar Vs. Savita
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2013
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:23. d July, 2013 % + RFA 220/2012 DINESH KUMAR Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, Adv. Versus SAVITA ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J 1.The appeal impugns the order dated 07.02.2012 of the Additional District Judge (NW)-III, Rohini Courts, Delhi rejecting the plaint in CS No.280/2011 filed by the appellant for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale of immovable property and for injunction.2. Notice of the appeal was issued and the counsel for the respondent / defendant appeared. However the appeal was on 14.01.2013 dismissed in default of appearance of the appellant / plaintiff. The appellant / plaintiff applied for restoration and notice of which application was ordered to be issued to the respondent / defendant and the respondent / defendant was duly served therewith for 15.05.2013; none appeared for the respondent / defendant. In the circumst...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »