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.
Joginder @ Joga Vs. State N.C.T. of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 184/2003 Reserved on:22. d May, 2013 Decided on:22. d July, 2013 % JOGINDER @ JOGA Through ..... Appellant Mr. B.S. Chaudhary, Ms. Chitra Goswami, Ms. Kanta Chaudhary, Advs. with Appellant in custody. versus STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI Through + ..... Respondent Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for State with SI Sodhan Singh PS Dabri. CRL.A. 193/2003 YOGINDER @ GUDDU Through ..... Appellant Mr. B.S. Chaudhary, Ms. Chitra Goswami, Ms. Kanta Chaudhary, Advs. with Appellant in person. versus STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI Through ..... Respondent Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for State with SI Sodhan Singh PS Dabri. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA 1 The present appeals impugn the judgment dated 24th January, 2003 convicting the Appellants for offences under Section 395/34 IPC and Appellant Yoginder also for offence under Section 397 IPC and the order on sentence dated 24th January, 2003 directing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs...
V.K. Verma Vs. C.B.i.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. No. 293/2003 Reserved on:16. h May, 2013 Decided on:22. d July, 2013 % V.K. VERMA Through: ..... Appellant Mr. K.B. Andley, Sr. Adv. with Mr. M. Shamikh, Adv. versus C.B.I. Through: ..... Respondent Mr. R.V. Sinha, Standing Counsel. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA 1 The Appellant assails the judgment dated 9th April, 2003 whereby he has been convicted for offences under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short PC Act) and the order on sentence dated 10th April, 2003 whereby he has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and a half years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in case of default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months on both the counts.2. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the alleged demand was for Rs. 650/- for passing three bills out of which two bills had already ...
Sher Singh Sikriwal Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
$~R-3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:22. d July, 2013 % + W.P.(C) 101/2001 SHER SINGH SIKRIWAL Represented by: .... Petitioner Mr. Raman Duggal, Advocate. versus UOI & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr. Rajinder Nischal, Advocate for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. A short issue arises for consideration in the instant writ petition.2. It appears that the learned Members of Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal got thoroughly confused by the pleadings in OA No. 2195/1994 and probably the counsel for the petitioner could not explain the nuances of petitioners case resulting in the Tribunal penning in paragraph 16:At the outset, we would like to take the liberty to point out that the applicant does not seem to have done clear thinking on the reliefs specifically sought by him in this OA. We have already pointed out that claiming of the year 1978 as the year of allot...
Union of India and ors. Vs. Sh.K.S.Ludu and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: July 22, 2013 + W.P.(C) 6232/2011 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Represented by: ..... Petitioners Mr.R.V.Sinha, Advocate with Mr.A.S.Singh, Advocate versus SH.K.S.LUDU AND ANR. Represented by: ..... Respondents None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. The prescribed benchmark for promotion to Higher Administrative Grade (HAG) was five Very Good gradings in the ACRs for the preceding five years when DPC met to consider the eligible candidates. The said five years block period was for the years 2002-03 to 2006-07. The respondent had grading Very Good for the year 2002-03 and 2003-04. For the year 2006-07 his grading was Outstanding. For the year 2004-05 two ACRs were recorded for eight months and four months respectively. Respondent was graded Very Good and Good for the said two periods. For the year 2005-06 whereas the Reporting Officer graded respondent...
M/S Whirlpool of India Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: % + 15.05.2013 Judgment delivered on:22. 07.2013 W.P.(C) 7729/1999 M/S WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.S.Chadha, Advocate & Ms. Meera Mathur, Advocate versus REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER..... Respondent Through: Mr. R.C.Chawla, Advocate CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI JUDGMENT VIPIN SANGHI, J.1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the order dated 28.07.1999 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC) under section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the Act), and the appellate order dated 17.12.1999 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) dismissing the petitioners appeal under section 7I of the Act against the order dated 28.07.1999.2. The petitioner runs its factory at Faridabad. In ...
Suresh Ram Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
$~ 23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.4561/2013 Date of decision:22. d July, 2013 % SURESH RAM Through : ..... Petitioner Mr. Ankur Chhibber, adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, CGSC. CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J.(Oral) 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the failure of the respondents to abide by the directions made by this court as back as in the judgment dated 22 nd March, 2011 in WP(C)No.5077/2008, Sudesh Kumar v. Union of India and Another and connected writ petitions. The court authoritatively decided the issue relating to colour blindness in respect of serving personnel with the Central Para Military Forces whose colour blindness was discovered at the time when they were medically examined for promotional purpose. The court had issued clear directions to the respondents. The respondents were not only refusing pro...
Joginder Verma Vs. Tajinder Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on:22. d July, 2013 + CM(M) No.537/2013 & C.M. Nos.7997-99/2013 & C.M. No.11075/2013 JOGINDER VERMA Through ..Petitioner Mr.Harjinder Singh, Adv. versus TAJINDER SINGH ..Respondent Through None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(ORAL) C.M. No.11075/2013 (for restoration) The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 3rd August, 2011 passed by the trial court dismissing the application of the petitioner/defendant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay in filing Written Statement. The petition was dismissed vide order dated 14th May, 2013 in default as no one appeared when the matter was called. The petitioner thereafter filed an application being C.M. No.11075/2013 for restoration. The same is allowed. The petition is restored to its original number. CM(M) No.537/2013 1. The ...
Ved Vrat Sharma Vs. Auto Needs (i) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS (OS) No. 939 of 2009 Reserved on: July 4, 2013 Decision on: July 22, 2013 VED VRAT SHARMA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate. versus AUTO NEEDS (I) PVT. LTD. Through: ..... Defendant Mr. Sanat Kumar, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER 19 07.2013 IA Nos. 11504 of 2009 & 5959 o1. The Plaintiff, Mr. Ved Vrat Sharma, has filed the present suit against the Defendant, Auto Needs (I) Private Limited, seeking possession of the industrial plot bearing No. 507, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delh092. (the suit property) including the basement admeasuring 2500 sq. ft and ground floor admeasuring 2300 sq. ft, as shown in red colour in the site plan. He has further sought a decree in the sum of Rs. 11,79,780 as arrears of rent and service tax thereon from 1st September 2008 to 31st March 2009, pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum and a decree in the sum of Rs. 3,30,900 as damages/mesne profits for the month of April 2009...
Kunji Lal Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
$-13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON :22. d JULY, 2013 + CRL.A.427/2013 & CRL.M.A. 646/2013 KUNJI LAL ..... Appellant Through : Mr.S.Satyanarayana, Advocate. versus STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP. Ms.Ankita Mishra, Adv. for BSES. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.Garg, J.(Open Court) 1. The appellant- Kunji Lal has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 05.02.2013 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Complaint Case No. 116/2008 under Section 135 (1) (a) of Electricity Act, 2003 by which he was convicted under Section 135 (1) (a) of Electricity Act, 2003. By an order dated 14.02.2013, he was directed to pay ` 1,06,058/- to the respondent No.2/ BSES as civil liability.2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 25.06.2007 premises i.e. Arun General Store, Near Pahalwan Dhaba, Ward No.1, Mehrauli, New Delhi in use and occupation of the appellant were inspected by the officials of BSES Company and he was found...
Rockman Project Ltd. and ors. Vs. Devinder Kumar JaIn and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:18. h July, 2013 Date of Decision:22. d July, 2013 % + CO. APPL. (SB) 12/2013 AND CO. APPLN. 432/2013 ROCKMAN PROJECT LTD. & ORS. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Inderjeet Singh and Mr. Kamal Ahuja, Advocates. versus DEVINDER KUMAR JAIN & ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sakal Bhushan, Advocate. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR JUDGMENT R.V. EASWAR, J.:1. The appeal is directed against the order dated 15-2-2013 passed by the Company Law Board (CLB) in the CA No.89/2012 filed by the appellant herein, rejecting its plea for amendment of the written statement. The application is for stay of the order impugned.2. Shorn of unnecessary details and company law jargon, the facts are these. C.S. Agarwal and his associates/family members on the one hand and D.K. Jain and his wife Nirmal Jain on the other, joined together and formed a company by name Rockman Projects Limited (RPL or the company). It was a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »