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.
Viveka Nand Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: July 22, 2013 + W.P.(C) 7494/2011 VIVEKA NAND Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.T.D.Yadav, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Charu Ambwani, Advocate with Mr.Prashant Kumar, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. The short question which arises for our consideration in this writ petition is, whether the petitioner is entitled to pay protection on his appointment on regular basis as Data Entry OperatorGrade-II with the Central Pollution Control Board, respondent No.2.2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner was initially engaged as a Stenographer on daily wages with the respondent No.2 on January 24, 1990. With effect from January 24, 1996 the appointment of respondent No.2 was changed to Stenographer on ad-hoc basis and he was granted the scale of `1200-2040 and the pay was fixed at `1200. Pursuant to the rec...
Sh. Rajiv Lochan Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Limited and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W. P. (C) 7979/2011 22nd July, 2013 % SH. RAJIV LOCHAN Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. N.S. Dalal, Mr. H.L. Verma, Advocates Versus BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anupam Varma, Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocates for respondent No.1. Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. H.S. Sachdeva, Advocates for respondent No.2. Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Advocate for respondent No. 3 with Mr. P. Narayan, Manager of Pension Trust. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The petitioner sought voluntary retirement from respondent No. 1/BSES Rajdhani Power Limited. Petitioner was the employee of the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) and on unbundling of DVB, petitioners services were taken over by the respondent No.1. It is not disputed before me that the petitioner was entitled to and would be given voluntary retirement in terms of Rule 48(...
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. Vs. Mukesh Kumar P. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS (OS) No. 3244 of 2011 Reserved on: July 2, 2013 Decision on: July 22, 2013 SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sachin Gupta and Mr. Vikrant Nagpal, Advocates. versus MUKESH KUMAR P. & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Abhishek Malhotra and Mr. Angad Singh Dugal, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT 22 07.2013 1. This suit has been filed Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited (SPIL) against Mr. P. Mukesh Kumar, the proprietor of M/s. Idalis (a division of Marx Remedies) (Defendant No.1), M/s. Marx Remedies (Defendant No.2), Invision Medi Sciences Pvt.Ltd. (Defendant No.3), M/s. Chimak Health Care located at Solan in Himachal Pradesh (Defendant No.4) and M/s. Visions located at New Delhi (Defendant No.5) for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing the Plaintiffs trade mark AMLOBET, passing off, rendition of accounts and delivery of the infringing goods of the Defendants etc.2. T...
Avtar Singh Khurana Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: July 15, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: July 22, 2013 + CRL.M.C. No.5034 of 2005 AVTAR SINGH KHURANA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arun Vohra, Mr. Raj Kamal & Mr. Mahee Pradhan, Advocates versus STATE AND ANR. Through: .....Respondents Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1- State. Mr. D.S. Kohli, Advocate for respondent No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT 1 After filing of charge-sheet in FIR No.697/2002 under Sections 406/420/468/471/506/120B of IPC registered at P.S. Lajpat Nagar, Delhi quashing of above-said FIR is sought by petitioner who is alleged to be instrumental in commission of forgery to cheat Kuldeep Singh-First Informant of the FIR in question. Normally, such petitions are not entertained as petitioner has efficacious remedy of assailing the chargesheet filed at the stage of hearing on point of charge before trial court and to se...
A.K. Verma Vs. R.K.Mathur and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 555/2013 DATE OF DECISION:22. D JULY, 2013 A.K.VERMA Through ..... Petitioner Mr. O. P. Kalshian, Advocate. versus R.K.MATHUR & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocate with Mr. R. V. Sinha, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(ORAL) 1. This contempt petition is predicated on the non implementation of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.5042/2002, titled as UOI & Anr. v. A.S. Arora & Ors. whereby a common challenge raised to the decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal in a group of matters, which also included the matter concerning the petitioner (Writ Petition (C) No.3300/2011), was disallowed in terms of a common judgment delivered on 31st May, 2012.2. It would appear that the respondents herein decided to take the matter further and filed separate Special Leave Petitions with regard to each of the batch matters whic...
Union of India Vs. Sant Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: July 09, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: July 22, 2013 + W.P.(C) 1955/2012 UNION OF INDIA Represented by: .....Petitioner Mr.R.V.Sinha, Advocate with Mr.Amit Dubey and Mr.A.S.Singh, Advocates versus SANT RAM .....Respondent Represented by: Ms.Meenu Mainee, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. The respondent has litigated four times with the Indian Railways before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The litigation commenced for the first time when respondent filed OA No.1679/1994 challenging the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority removing him from service on account of gross negligence and not completing the assigned work to him. Finding a technical flaw, pertaining to the procedure, the penalty order was set aside. Respondent was reinstated in service as per order dated July 21, 1999 passed by the Tribunal allowing OA No.1679/1994; simultane...
Union of India and ors. Vs. Kuldeep Kumar Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: July 08, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: July 22, 2013 + W.P.(C) 7652/2010 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Represented by: .....Petitioners Mr.Ashish, Advocate for Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate versus KULDEEP KUMAR SHARMA ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms.Jyoti Singh, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. The factual backdrop leading to filing of the above captioned petition is that on August 13, 1969 the Electronic Data Processing (hereinafter referred to as the EDP) cell started functioning in the Border Security Force.2. The respondent was appointed on the post of Key Punch Operator in the EDP cell on October 4, 1971 and was promoted to the posts of Auditor in said cell on June 17, 1980.3. On February 28, 1974 one P.B.Mishra was appointed on the post of Auditor in EDP cell and got promoted to the posts of Assistant Superinten...
Firoj Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:22. h July, 2013 + CRL.A. 420/2013 FIROJ ..... Appellant Through Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate with Mr. Adit Pujari, Advocate. Appellant produced in custody. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL JUDGMENT G.S.SISTANI J.(ORAL) 1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant, Firoj, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is directed against the judgment dated 16.3.2012 and order on sentence dated 20.03.2012 by which the petitioner has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of `10,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 364A/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one year simple imprisonment. It was also directed that the period already undergone by the appellant during the trial of the case would be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.2. On 28.05.2013, a Division Bench of this C...
Naveen Dobhal and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C) No. 5374/1998 22nd July, 2013 NAVEEN DOBHAL & ORS. Through: ......Petitioner None. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Mr. A.S.Tuisen Shimray, Adv. for Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. In this writ petitions petitioners who were engaged to work for 10 days in a month on shift basis as Video Editors seek regularization in their posts.2. The issue in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors Vs. Umadevi & Ors. 2006(4) SCC 1.In the case of Umadevi (supra) the Supreme Court has held that casual employees cannot be regularized, unless there are vacancies in sanctioned posts which are filled in through the regular recruitment process including of insertion of advertisement in newspaper. The Supreme Court in the ...
Leelu and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2013
17 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4724/2010 LEELU & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Ashok Gurnani, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Yogesh Saini, Adv. for R-1 Mr. Sanjeev Sahay, Adv. for R-2 & 3 Mr. Arun Birbal, Adv. for DDA Date of Decision:22. d July, 2013 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents to allot a developed residential plot to the petitioners.2. The relevant facts of the present case are that the petitioners are the native of village Badli, whose ancestral land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1982. Admittedly, the owner of the land, namely, Mr. Prahlad Singh, during his lifetime, never applied for allotment of alternative plot. It was only in November, 2008 that the petitioner who is the original owners son made a representation to re...
- ‹ Prev
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- Next ›
- Last »