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

Try free for 7 days Semantic AI Search

Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.

Jul 15 2013

Gainilung Panmei Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Jul-15-2013

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.2537/2012 and CM 5434/2012 (Stay) 15th July, 2013 % GAINILUNG PANMEI Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Shantanu Kumar, Advocate VERSUS FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORS. ...... Respondents Through: Ms. Anjana Masih, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Sudhindra Tripathi, Advocate for Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. Petitioner by means of this writ petition seeks appointment to the post of AGM(Legal) in the Scheduled Tribe category with the respondent No.1-Food Corporation of India. The subject post was advertised on 8.01.2011.2. On behalf of respondent No. 1, it is contended that petitioner was not selected because he did not meet the criteria as stated in the advertisement of having appeared in five matters in a year for three years. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 contends that the petitioner appeared in ...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jul 15 2013

Ramjas Foundation Vs. Sunita Sharma

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Jul-15-2013

A$~40. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: Judgment delivered on: % + 21.05.2013 15.07.2013 W.P.(C.) No. 883/2010 (Arising out of award dated 24.10.2009 in ID No.06/2005) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus DHEER SINGH Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate. W.P.(C) 6499/2010 (Arising out of award dated 21.05.2010 in ID No.1292/2004) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate. W.P.(C) 6501/2010 (Arising out of award dated 21.05.2010 in ID No.10/2005) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus SUNITA SHARMA Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate. W.P.(C) 6514/2010 (Arising out of award dated 21.05.2010 in ID No.1293/2004) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus NARAYAN JHA Through: ..... ...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jul 15 2013

Ramjas Foundation Vs. Balraj

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Jul-15-2013

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jul 15 2013

Ponty Singh Vs. Anu Singh Bhatia

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Jul-15-2013

* % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI I.A.No.5783/2012 (u/o 39 R. 1 & CPC), I.A. No.6736/12 (u/o 39 R. 1 & 2 CPC), I.A. No.14564/2012 (u/o 39 R. 2A CPC) & I.A. No.16732/12 (u/o 39 R. 2A CPC) IN CS(OS) 820/2012 + Date of Decision:15. h July, 2013 # ! PONTY SINGH .....Plaintiff Through: Ms. Geeta Luthra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev Sahay and Mr. Harish Malik, Advocates. versus $ * ANU SINGH BHATIA .....Defendant Through: Mr. A.S.Chandhiok, Senior Advocate with Mr. P. Banerjee and Ms. Princy Ponnan, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN ORDER P.K. BHASIN, J.This litigation is between husband and wife whose marriage solemnised way back in the year 1999 and from which wedlock they have been blessed with two children is now completely been shattered and. in fact, appears to have irretrievably broken down. Both are now fighting fierce battles in India as well as in Singapore for divorce and maintenance of children etc.2. The plaintiff and the defendant got married in Dece...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jul 15 2013

State of Nct of Delhi Vs. Jamil @ Kalu

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Jul-15-2013

* % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:15.7.2013 + CRL.L.P. 385/2012 STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Addl. Standing counsel (Crl.) for the State. versus JAMIL @ KALU ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Satya Pal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) CRL.M.A. No.13360/2012 (for condonation of 85 days delay in filing the petition) 1. In view of the averments made in the application, the delay of 85 days in filing the petition is condoned. Application stands disposed of. CRL.L.P. 385/2012 2 This criminal leave to appeal has been filed by the State seeking to lay a challenge to the judgment of acquittal dated 31.01.2012 vide which both the accused persons Jamil @ Kalu and Sunil Bihari (being tried as the other two co-accused had not been arrested) had been acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC levelled against them for having committed the murder of decease...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jul 15 2013

Ramjas Foundation Vs. Asha Gaba

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Jul-15-2013

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jul 15 2013

Ramjas Foundation Vs. D Latha

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Jul-15-2013

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jul 15 2013

Bharat Gupta Vs. Uoi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Jul-15-2013

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: July 15, 2013 + W.P.(C) 21946/2005 BHARAT GUPTA Represented by: .....Petitioner Mr.M.F.Khan, Advocate versus UOI & ORS. Represented by: .....Respondents Ms.Anjana Gosain, Advocate with Mr.T.Mitra, Advocate for R-1 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) CM No.19343/2012 Though we find no good ground pleaded to condone the delay in filing CM No.19342/2012, we condone the delay in filing CM No.19342/2012. CM No.19343/2012 is allowed. CM No.19342/2012 Though we find no good reason for non-appearance on September 11, 2012, in the interest of justice we allow the application and restore CM Nos.11563, 11564, 11565 of 2012 which seek restoration of the writ petition, delay in filing application for restoration to be condoned and exemption respectively. CM No.11565/2012 Exemption allowed as prayed for. CM No.11564/2012 For the reasons stated in the application 453 d...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jul 15 2013