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.
Jaiprakash Singh Vs. Rashmi Aggrawal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-2013
* + IN THE HIGHCOURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.REV.P. 749/2010 Judgment delivered on:11. 07.2013 JAIPRAKASH SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Versus Mr. Himanshu Munshi, Adv. RASHMI AGGRAWAL ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Alok Bansal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.1. This criminal revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner/accused to challenge the order dated 23.10. 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I (Outer) Rohini Courts, Delhi whereby the learned Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent/complainant.2. Brief facts relevant for deciding the present revision petition are that the complainant, Mr. Dinesh Aggarwal was engaged in the business of stainless steel and gift items under the name and style of M/s Family Gift Emporium and advanced a loan of Rs. 1,25,000/- in March 2002 to the petitioner/accused. Towards the discharge of the said loan liability, the petitioner/accused issued two post-dated cheques ...
Sushil Kumar and ors. Vs. University Grants Commission
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) No.4338/2013 10th July, 2013 % SUSHIL KUMAR 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. By this writ petition, petitioners claim regularization with the respondent/University Grants Commission (UGC). Petitioners in fact have never worked with UGC as employees of UGC but were placed by private placement agencies for working with the respondent. Petitioners are therefore not employees of respondent but of private contractors.2. Even if the petitioners are working as ad hoc employees or casual employees of the respondent, services of such persons cannot be regularized in view of ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors Vs. Umadevi & Ors. 2006 (4) S...
Indian Council of Agricultural Research and anr. Vs. Om Prakash and an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: July 10, 2013. + WP(C)13021-22/2006 INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH & ANR. .....Petitioners Represented by: Mr.B.Vijay Kumar, Advocate with Mr.B.S.Mor, Advocate versus SHRI FAIYAZ Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.G.S.Lohana, Advocate. WP(C)13221-22/2006 INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH & ANR. .....Petitioners Represented by: Mr.B.Vijay Kumar, Advocate with Mr.B.S.Mor, Advocate versus OM PRAKASH & ANR. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.G.S.Lohana, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) CM No.9988/2013 in WP(C)13021-22/2006 CM No.9985/2013 in WP(C)13221-22/2006 Early hearing as prayed for in the two applications by the respondent in the above captioned writ petitions are allowed since learned counsel for the petitioners in both writ petitions concedes to the request. The applications stand disposed of. W.P.(C) Nos.13021-22/2006 &...
Suresh Kumar Duggal Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) C.B.i
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. No. 100/2003 Reserved on:25. h April, 2013 Decided on:10. h July, 2013 % SURESH KUMAR DUGGAL ..... Appellant Through: Mr. S. K. Sharma, Mr. Puneet Relan, Mr. Prayas Aneja and Mr. Milan Deep Singh, Advocates. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) C.B.I ..... Respondent Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha, Standing Counsel. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA 1 By this appeal the Appellant impugns the judgment dated 29th January, 2003 whereby he has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 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 30 th January, 2003 whereby he has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and a fine of Rs. 500/- each for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(2) of the PC Act. In case of default of payment of fine the Appellant has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months on each count.2. Lear...
Smt.Leela Sharma Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %` Date of decision: July 10, 2013 + WP(C)4330/2013 SMT.LEELA SHARMA Represented by: .....Petitioner Mr.Padma Kumar, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. The Tribunal has held against the petitioner on merits as well as on the bar of limitation.2. Since we agree with the Tribunal that the claim was barred by limitation, we need not trouble ourselves with the opinion of the Tribunal concerning the merits of the claim.3. On the subject of limitation it be noted that the claim of the petitioner made before the Tribunal in the year 2012 was that second benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme ought to be granted to the petitioner in the year 2004. The basis for the claim was that ad-hoc service rendered by the petitioner since August 29, 1980 had to be counted in computing 24 years service ...
Oruj Ahmed Vs. RashiduddIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % I.A. No. 17544/2011 in CS(OS) No. 2310/2011 Date of Decision:10. h July, 2013 + # ! ORUJ AHMED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Y.D. Nagar, Advocate versus $ * RASHIDUDDIN & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Anwar Ali Khan, Advocate for D-1 Mr. Ashok Bhasin, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Zubair Khan, Mr. Tamim Qadri, Mr. Arav Kapoor & Mr. Anubhav Bhasin, Advocates for D-2 to D-4 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN ORDER P.K.BHASIN, J: Defendant nos.2 and 3 seek rejection of the plaint in this suit for declaration of title, possession etc. filed against them by the plaintiff on the allegations that they have dispossessed him illegally from the suit property(plot no.33 msg. 400 sq.yds. in khasra no.378/172, Johri Farm, Village Okhla, New Delhi) he had legally acquired from defendant no.1.2. The applicants-defendants have sought rejection of the plaint, before even filing any written statement, on the ground that in the plaint itself the plaintiff has av...
M/S Entrepreneurs Co-op Grouphousing Society Ltd. Vs. M/S Schindler In ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:10. h July, 2013. % + CS(OS) 1100/2005 M/S ENTREPRENEURS CO-OP GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Kawal Nain, Ms. Kavita Batra and Ms. Bhavya Nain, Advocates. Versus M/S SCHINDLER INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Babit Singh Jamwal and Mr. Puneet Singh Bindra, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW JUDGMENT 10 07.2013 % 1. The plaintiff has sued for recovery of principal sum of Rs.19 lakhs together with interest @ 24% per annum till the date of institution of the suit of Rs.9,05,753.43 paise, i.e. total Rs.28,05,753.43 paise pleading: (i) that the plaintiff, a Co-operative Group Housing Society had entered into the Agreement dated 6th December, 1999 with the defendant whereunder the defendant undertook to supply, install and commission fourteen Schindler smart machine room less TM 00.lifts/elevators @ Rs.9,30,000/- per lift for a total price of Rs.1,30,20,000/- at the flats to be...
Indian Council of Agricultural Research and anr. Vs. Shri Faiyaz
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: July 10, 2013. + WP(C)13021-22/2006 INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH & ANR. .....Petitioners Represented by: Mr.B.Vijay Kumar, Advocate with Mr.B.S.Mor, Advocate versus SHRI FAIYAZ Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.G.S.Lohana, Advocate. WP(C)13221-22/2006 INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH & ANR. .....Petitioners Represented by: Mr.B.Vijay Kumar, Advocate with Mr.B.S.Mor, Advocate versus OM PRAKASH & ANR. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.G.S.Lohana, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) CM No.9988/2013 in WP(C)13021-22/2006 CM No.9985/2013 in WP(C)13221-22/2006 Early hearing as prayed for in the two applications by the respondent in the above captioned writ petitions are allowed since learned counsel for the petitioners in both writ petitions concedes to the request. The applications stand disposed of. W.P.(C) Nos.13021-22/2006 &...
Cit Vs. Agnity India Technologies Pvt Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2013
$~09 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:10. h July, 2013 + ITA 1204/2011 CIT Through Ms. Suruchi standing counsel. ..... Appellant Aggarwal, sr. versus AGNITY INDIA TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD..... Respondent Through Mr. G.C. Srivastava and Ms. Preeti Bhardwaj, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL) This appeal by the Revenue, which pertains to the assessment year 2006-07, in the case of Agnity India Technologies Pvt. Ltd. raises a short issue. The respondent-assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bay Packets Inc., USA and was/is engaged in the business of development of software for the parent company in the field of telecommunication. The respondent had filed return of income on 30th November, 2006 declaring total income of Rs.8,31,720/-. As respondent-assessee had undertaken international transactions with Associated Enterprise details of which were mentioned in the tax audit report, the mat...
Hilton Hotel Management Services Private Ltd. Vs. --
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2013
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:10. h July, 2013 + CO. PET. 117/2013 HILTON HOTEL MANAGEMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajeev K Goel and Mr. Naresh Kumar, Advocates for the Petitioner CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR R. V. EASWAR, J.: (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed by Hilton Hotel Management Services Pvt Ltd (hereinafter referred to as petitioner company) under Sections 100 to 104 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) for confirming the reduction of its share capital.2. The registered office of the petitioner company is situated at New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of this Court.3. The petitioner company was incorporated under the provisions of the Act as a private limited company vide Certificate of Incorporation bearing Corporate Identity Number (CIN): U55101DL2007FTC165434 dated 2nd July 2007 issued by the Registrar of Companies (ROC), Delhi and Haryana, New Delhi.4. The authorised share capital of the Petitioner compa...
- ‹ Prev
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- Next ›
- Last »