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.
Yashpal Raikar and anr. Vs. the State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON : May 17, 2013 DECIDED ON :9. h July, 2013 + BAIL APPLN. 314/2009 YASHPAL RAIKAR & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through : Mr.V.K.Mehra with Mr.S.M.Walawaiker, Advocates. versus THE STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State. Mr.Suhail Dutt, with Mr.Azhar Alam, Advocate for M/s Anirva Developers Pvt. Ltd.(Intervener). Mr.Pawan Narang with Mr.Anish Dhingra, Advocates for Mr.Baleshwar Sharma (Intervener). Mr.Sanjiv Sen with Mr.Anoop K.Sinha, Advocates for the complainant-Nageshwar Pandey. Mr.Vijay Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr.Ravi Arora-Director. SI Vijender Singh, Crime Branch. + BAIL APPLN. 315/2009 FARMEENA KHAUNTE & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through : Mr.V.K.Mehra with Mr.S.M.Walawaiker, Advocates. versus THE STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State. Mr.Suhail Dutt, Advocate with Mr.Azhar Alam, Advocate for M/s Anirva Developers Pvt. Ltd.(Intervener). Mr.Pawan Narang with Mr.Ani...
Shri Romi Sharma and ors. Vs. the Management of Hotel the Oberoi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:09. 07.2013 LPA 182/2013 SHRI ROMI SHARMA AND ORS. ..... Appellants ..... Respondent versus THE MANAGEMENT OF HOTEL THE OBEROI Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr H. K. Chaturvedi with Ms Anjali Chaturvedi & Mohd. Aqil Saifi For the Respondent : Mr Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate with Mr Jayant K. Mehta and Mr Sukant Vikram CORAM:HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, ACJ (ORAL) 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.02.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the appellants writ petition being W.P.(C) No.9748-9750/2006 was dismissed.2. The appellant has challenged the orders dated 02.12.2000 and 03.07.2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal. At the outset, Mr Parag Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the present appeal ought not to be enterta...
Allahabad Bank Vs. Nitesh Kumar Tripathi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Decision:09. 07.2013 W.P.(C) 906/2012 and CM No.2025/2012 ALLAHABAD BANK ..... Petitioner Through:Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate versus NITESH KUMAR TRIPATHI Through: ..... Respondent None AND + W.P.(C) 1191/2012 and CM No.2578/2012 ALLAHABAD BANK ..... Petitioner Through:Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate versus GYANENDER KUMAR SHUKLA Through: ..... Respondent None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(ORAL) In WP(C) No.906/2012, the respondent before this Court filed an application seeking certain information, including details of the assets declared by all officers above Scale-III of the petitioner bank. The said application was responded by the CPIO of the petitioner bank on 12th August, 2011. However, even before receipt of the reply from the CPIO, the respondent had already preferred an appeal before the first Appellate Authority. Vide order dated 26 th August, 2011, the First Appellate Authority noticing that the appeal...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Samsung India Electronics Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:9. h July, 2013 + ITA 131/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, sr. standing counsel. versus SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr.Satyen Sethi and Mr. Arta Tarana Panda, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL) Revenue by this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) challenges the findings recorded by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the order dated 28th November, 2008 that the assessee is entitled to claim and set off expenses of Rs.34,95,606/-. It is submitted that the said expense are capital in nature as they are Set up expenses. The findings recorded by the tribunal reads as under:6. In view of the above, the business of the assessee could be said to have been set up on 3.9.95 as prior to this necessary agreements had been entered into, key personnel had...
Mrs. Rita Vohra Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through the Chief Secretary
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2013
1. The applicant has filed this O.A. seeking the following relief:- Full Pay and Allowances for the period 04/06/2012 to 01/09/2012 alongwith increment due on 01/07/2012. 2. Facts of the case are that the applicant while working as Grade-III DASS/UDC with the respondents was placed under suspension vide order dated 04.06.2012 on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against her. Subsequently this suspension was extended beyond 90 days for a further period of 180 days vide order dated 03.09.2012. The extension was challenged by the applicant in this Tribunal by filing OA3173/2012. This O.A. was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 19.10.2012 by which the extension of the suspension period of the applicant was set aside on the ground that the extension had not been made before expiry of 90 days period from her suspension order and was consequently in violation of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. However, the initial suspension order was neither challenged nor adjud...
Surya Prakash Agarwal Vs. Union of India Through Principal Secretary t ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2013
G. George Paracken, J. 1. The Applicant has filed this Original Application seeking the following reliefs:- (a) To set aside order dated 19th September 2011 passed by Surveyor General rejecting applicants departmental Second Appeal dated 9th June, 2011. To set aside order dated 6th December, 1983 passed by Respondent rejecting applicants departmental Review Petition in applicants First Appeal dated 13th February, 2012. To set aside order dated 28th April, 1983 (vide communication dated 1st May 1983) passed by Respondent rejecting applicants departmental First Appeal dated 24th November 1983. To set aside order dated 5th February 1975 passed by Surveyor General rejecting applicants representation dated 19th December 1974. To set aside order dated 4/6th June 1973 passed by Dean, Indian Photo interpretation Institute, Survey of India accepting applicants resignation with effect from 4th June, 1973 (After noon). To direct respondent for showing applicants conditional resignation letter dat...
Ghan Shyam Singh Vs. Union of India and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2013
$~ 18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.4275/2013 Date of decision:9. h July, 2013 % GHAN SHYAM SINGH Through : ..... Petitioner Mr. J.S. Manhas, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through : ..... Respondents Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J.(Oral) 1. Issue notice to show cause to the respondents as to why rule nisi be not issued. Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.2. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the writ petition can be disposed of on the basis of available record. With the consent of both the parties, we have accordingly heard the writ petition.3. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are in narrow compass. The petitioner was tried and convicted by an order dated 12th September, 1991 of the Summary Court Martial WP(C) No.4275/2013 page 1 of 6 which was assailed before us by way of WP(Crl.)No.77/1993 (which was subsequently ...
B.K.Kapoor Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : July 08, 2013 + W.P.(C) 3560/2013 B.K.KAPOOR Represented by: .....Petitioner Mr.K.D.Gupta, Advocate versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. State Council of Educational Research and Training Delhi (SCERT) is a society registered under the Delhi Societies Registration Act.2. As per Rule 25 of the Memorandum of Association the Executive Committee of SCERT acts as the Governing Body of SCERT. As per Rule 26, the Executive Committee consists of : (i) Secretary (Education) Government of NCT Delhi who acts as the Chairperson of the Executive Committee, (ii) Secretary (Finance), (iii) Director of Education, (iv) Additional Director of Education (Schools), (v) Director NCERT or his nominee, (vi) Director, SCERT, (vii) Director NIEPA or his nominee, (viii) Joint Secretary (...
Pramod Kumar Vs. State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :21. t MAY, 2013 DECIDED ON :08. h JULY, 2013 + CRL.M.C. 654/2013 PRAMOD KUMAR Through : ....Petitioner Mr.Pramod Kumar, Advocate/ petitioner in person. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .Respondent Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP. Mr.R.S.Mishra, Advocate for complainant SI Ranvir Singh, PS Palam Village. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner- Pramod Kumar for quashing of FIR No. 73/2010 under Sections 308/325/342/34 IPC registered at Police Station Palam Village and charge dated 09.10.2012 under Sections 308/342/34 IPC.2. I have heard the parties and examined the record. Petitioner urged that he has been falsely implicated in FIR No. 73/2010 which was lodged as a counterblast to FIR No. 72/2010 registered in the said police station under Sections 452/323/327/34 IPC against the complainant and his associates on his complaint. He further argued that ...
Uoi and ors. Vs. Rajender Ram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: July 08, 2013 + W.P.(C) 5268/2012 UOI & ORS. ..... Petitioners Represent ed by: Mr.Sachin Datta, CGSC with Ms.Ritika Jhurani and Mr.Vikram Aditya Naryan, Advocate versus RAJENDER RAM & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Srigopal Aggarwal, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that the writ petition has to be allowed.2. A reading of the impugned order dated February 28, 2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal would reveal that the Tribunal has principally agreed with the petitioners that the Circular dated February 4, 2004 disentitles the respondent to receive Patient Care Allowance but has granted the relief on grounds of parity observing that documents filed by the respondents (claimants before the Tribunal) would reveal that Chowkidars working in Institutions such ...
- ‹ Prev
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- Next ›
- Last »