Delhi Court August 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.
Himanshu Bhatt Vs. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Li
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 5293/2013 27th August , 2013 % HIMANSHU BHATT Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Anando Mukherjee, Advocate. VERSUS INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LIMITED AND ORS. ...... Respondents Through: Ms. Raavi Birbal, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner, who was a probationary officer with the respondent No.1, impugns his termination effected by the letter/order dated 21.9.2012.2. Petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Supervisor (Tourism) in terms of the appointment letter dated 27.7.2009. Petitioner was appointed on probation initially for a period of two years. Petitioner continued on probation even after two years, though without a formal extension order, however also without a written confirmation order of being regularized. Paras 6 and 7 of the appointment letter dated 27.7.2009 read as...
St. Anthony???s Senior Secondary School Vs. Rohini Gupta and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C) No. 6549/2008 27th August, 2013 ST. ANTHONYS SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL Through: ......Petitioner Mr. P.P.Khurana, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Dipender Kumar,Advocate. VERSUS ROHINI GUPTA & ANR. Through: ...... Respondents Ms. Garima Prasad, Adv. for R-1. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner-school impugns the order of the Delhi School Tribunal (DST) dated 30.7.2008. By the impugned order the Delhi School Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent no.1 and set aside her termination of services with full back wages. The Delhi School Tribunal has held that respondent no.1 will stand confirmed after initial period of probation. It has been held that her services could not have been extended after the first year of probation. The DST has held that extension of period of probation has to be within the first year of probation itself and no...
B Padmaiah Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2013
$~ 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C)No.2640/2012 Date of decision:27. t August, 2013 % B PADMAIAH Through : ..... Petitioner Mr. S. Beno Bencigar, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS Through : ..... Respondents Mr. B.V. Niren and Mr. Prasouk Jain, Advs. CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioner in this case is aggrieved by the failure of the respondents to grant him the benefits of Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP Scheme hereafter) from the date of completion of 12 years of regular service without promotion. The petitioner also assails the order dated 12th March, 2011 passed by the Deputy Inspector, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF hereafter) denying the benefit of the ACP Scheme to the petitioner as well as the order dated 3rd August, 2011 passed by the Director General, CISF confirming the order of the Deputy Inspector.2. The factual narration by the petitioner is undisputed by the WP(C...
Mst Tana Vs. Badamo
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
$~R-1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA No. 384/1980 Judgment reserved on 2nd May, 2013 Judgment delivered on 26th August, 2013 MST TANA Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rakesh Saini, Adv. Versus BADAMO ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: Honble Mr. Justice A. K. Pathak 1. Appellant-plaintiff no. 1 along with respondent nos. 2 and 4 (plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 respectively) filed a suit for partition and perpetual injunction against the respondent nos. 1 and 3 (defendant nos. 1 and2) in respect of property bearing no. 3477, Gali No. 4/5, Rehgar Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (for short, hereinafter referred to as the suit property). By the judgment and decree dated 8th September, 1980 trial court dismissed the suit, hence, this appeal has been preferred by plaintiff no.1 wherein plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 have been impleaded as respondent nos. 2 and 4 as they chose not to challenge the impugned judgment and decree.2. Plaintiffs alleged in the plai...
Pinki Vs. the State (G.N.C.T. of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :25. h JULY, 2013 DECIDED ON :26. h AUGUST, 2013 + CRL.A. 1017/2011 PINKI Through : ....Appellant Mr.R.K.Dikshit, Advocate. versus THE STATE (G.N.C.T. OF DELHI) .Respondent Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Pinki (the appellant) impugns a judgment dated 20.05.2011 in Sessions Case No. 218/1/10 arising out of FIR No. 55/10 PS Moti Nagar by which she was convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 304 part-II IPC. By an order dated 26.05.2011, she was sentenced to undergo RI for five years with fine ` 200/-.2. Allegations against Pinki were that on 25.02.2010 at about 02.30 P.M. at Jhuggi No. 155/74, Jakhira, Chara Mandi, Delhi, she committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder by causing death of Akash aged 13 years. The police machinery came into motion when Daily Diary (DD) No. 24A (Ex.PW-9/A) was recorded at 01.45 P.M. on 26.02.2010 on getting information from his ...
P.R.Mehta Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: August 07, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: August 26, 2013 + (1) CRL.M.C. No.6620/2006 SUDHIR GUPTA Through: .....Petitioner Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal and Mr. Abhishek Mohan Sinha, Advocates Versus STATE & ANR. Through: + (2) .....Respondents Mr. Neeraj Malhotra and Ms. Prithu Garg, Advocates for Respondent-SEBI CRL.M.C. No.7487/2006 P.R. MEHTA Through: .....Petitioner Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal and Mr. Abhishek Mohan Sinha, Advocates Versus STATE & ANR. Through: + (3) .....Respondents Mr. Neeraj Malhotra and Ms. Prithu Garg, Advocates for Respondent-SEBI CRL.M.C. No.159/2007 PRAKASH GUPTA Through: .....Petitioner Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal and Mr. Abhishek Mohan Sinha, Advocates Versus STATE & ANR. Crl.M.Cs.6620/06; 7487/06 & 159/07 .....Respondents Page 1 of 11 Through: Mr. Neeraj Malhotra and Ms. Prithu Garg, Advocates for SEBI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR % 1. JUDGMENT Since in the above-captioned three petitions, quashing of Criminal ...
S.N. JaIn Vs. Registrar Co-op. Societies
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5234/2013 and CM No. 11745/2013 (Stay) S.N. JAIN Through: versus REGISTRAR CO-OP. SOCIETIES Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. K.K. Malhotra, Advocate. ..... Respondent None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI ORDER (ORAL) : REVA KHETRAPAL, J.1. The prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of the order dated 17.6.2013 passed by the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Delhi (the Respondent herein), whereby in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 35(5) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 (DCS Act), Shri S. Roy Biswas, Deputy Director, DDA was appointed as Returning Officer for holding the election of the Managing Committee of the Jai Laxmi Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Society), as per DCS Act and Rules.2. At the outset, we may note that the writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner in his capacity as Treasurer of the Societ...
Hem Singh Vs. the Director of Education and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 5788/2011 26th August, 2013 % HEM SINGH Through: ......Petitioner Mr. M.A.Niyazi, Advocate VERSUS THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Vikram Saini, Adv. for Ms. Asha Saini, Adv. for R-2 and 3. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner impugns the order of the Delhi School Tribunal dated 3.2.2011. By the impugned order the Delhi School Tribunal has dismissed the appeal and held that petitioner was rightly terminated from services during the period of probation.2. In the recent judgment dated 25.7.2013 in W.P.(C) 8652/2011 titled as Hamdard Public School Vs. Directorate of Education and Anr., I have after giving the reasons held as under:- 3. Sub- Rule 1 of Rule 105 provides the original period of probation as one year, and which can be extended by the appointing ...
State Vs. Rakesh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.L.P. 83/2013 STATE Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State versus RAKESH ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR ORDER % 26.08.2013 Crl.M.A. 2300/2013 By this application moved under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr. P. C.) the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 49 days in filing theappeal. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the appealis condoned. The application stands disposed of. CRL.L.P. 83/2013 1. By this application filed under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C.the petitioner seeks grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 29.09.2012 passed by Honble Sh. Vijay Kumar Dahiya, Addl. Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in FIR no. 214/2009 thereby acquitting the accused from the charges framed against him under Section 302/20...
P.S.Behl Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on August 12, 2013 Judgment Delivered on August 26, 2013 + W.P.(C) 5617/2001 PS. BEHL Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Shanker Raju, Advocate versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate for GNCTD Mr.M.L.Sharma, Advocate for R-4 + W.P.(C) 7316/2011 PS. BEHL Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.K.K.Sharma Senior Advocate with Ms.Bhanita Patowary, Adv. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms.Shawana Bari, Advocate for Mr.Rajiv Nanda, Advocate for R-1 Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate Mr.M.L.Sharma, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. The subject matter of the writ petitions is different. The petitioner in both the petitions is common and the reliefs being interrelated, the same are being disposed of by this common order.2. For purpose of convenience Mr.Kuljeet Singh who is re...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »