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.
Gouttam Chhabra and anr Vs. Governor of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
$~34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + DECIDED ON:26. 08.2013 W.P.(C) 4729/2013, C.M. APPL. 10793/2013 & 10794/2013 GOUTTAM CHHABRA & ANR ..... Petitioners Through : Ms. Esha Mazumdar with Sh. Setu Niket, Advocates. versus GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through : Sh. C. Parkash, Advocate, for R-1. Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocate, for R-3. Sh. Ajay Verma, Advocate, for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. The petitioners in these proceedings under Article 226 question the land acquisition proceedings, issued by the respondents, especially the one dated 20.03.2013, publishing the final declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereafter referred to as the Act).2. The petitioners claim to be owners of Khasra Nos. 6//14/2, 15/1, 6/17 min and 17 min, Village Shahbad Daulatpur (hereafter WP (C) 4729/2013 Page 1 referred to as suit lands). These were included in the no...
S. P. Gupta Vs. M/S. Packwell Manufacturers (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:19. h August, 2013 Date of decision:26. h August, 2013 + CO. A. (SB) No.35/2013 & CO. APPL. Nos.399-1401/2013 S. P. GUPTA Through : ..... Petitioner Mr. Sudhir Nandrajag, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Atul Sharma, Mr Nitesh Jain, Mr Sugam Seth and Ms. Sagriti Ahuja, Advocates. versus M/S. PACKWELL MANUFACTURERS (DELHI) PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. U. K. Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shario Reyaz and Mr Mohd Saif Abbasi, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR JUDGMENT R. V. EASWAR, J.:1. This is an appeal filed by one S.P. Gupta under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is directed against the order passed by the Company Law Board (CLB, for short) on 26.04.2013 in Company Application No.156/2013 [in CO. PET. No.1(ND)/2010]. The contesting respondents are: (i) M/s. Packwell Manufacturers (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd.(R-1); (ii) Mrs. Rajni Gupta, W/o. Late Mr. B.C. Gupta (R-2) and (iii) Ms. Gud...
Rajeev Khurana Vs. Principal, Saraswati Bal Mandir and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % RAJEEV KHURANA W.P.(C) No. 4968/2008 Through:26. h August, 2013 ......Petitioner Petitioner in person. VERSUS PRINCIPAL, SARASWATI BAL MANDIR & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Puneet Taneja, Adv. and Ms. Shweta, Adv. for R-1 to 3. Ms. Bandana Shukla, Adv. for R-4. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The present petition impugns the judgment of the Delhi School Tribunal dated 17.9.2007 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner herein whereby petitioner challenged the termination of his services during the probation period by the order dated 30.4.1998.2. Petitioner was appointed on a probation for a period of two years in terms of the appointment letter dated 3.9.1997 and was terminated within the first year of service by the letter dated 30.4.1998. Though there are various reasons given for considering the termination of services of the petitioner as a probatio...
The Management of Ses, Baba Nebhraj Sr. Secondary Vs. Rajkumari Khanch ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1568/2012 and CM Nos. 3454/2012 (stay), 3455/2012 (under O. 2 R.2 CPC) % 26.08.2013 THE MANAGEMENT OF SES, BABA NEBHRAJ SR. SECONDARY SCHOOL & ANR. .... Petitioners Through Mr. Ashok Gurnani, Advocate versus RAJKUMARI KHANCHANDANI & ANR. .... Respondents Through Mr. Akhil Sachar, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition impugns the judgment of the Delhi School Tribunal (DST) dated 11.08.2011 whereby the Tribunal set aside the termination order of the respondent No. 1 herein and directed continuation of services of the respondent No. 1 on the ground that the termination order was stigmatic. The DST has also held in the facts of the case that the appointment would be on probation for one year and not for two years as was contended by the school. Respondent No. 1 succeeded in the Tribunal wherein it was held that she w...
Smt. Uma Devi Vs. Mr.Bijdender Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + R.S.A. No.175/2013 Decided on :26. 08.2013 SMT. UMA DEVI Through: Appellant Mr.Pramod K.Sharma, Advocate. Versus MR.BIJDENDER SINGH Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 19.02.2013 passed in RCA No.31/2011 upholding the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge on 27.07.2011 decreeing the suit partially so far as the refund of the consideration amount of `50,000/- is concerned.2. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that despite the fact that the two courts below have come to the conclusion that the respondent had executed an agreement to sell in favour of the appellant, still, instead of decreeing the suit for specific performance, the courts below have chosen to grant alternative relief to the appellant which was for refund of the consideration amount of `50,000/-.3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the...
Shri Man Singh Vs. Ramji Das
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + R.S.A No.174/2013 Decided on :26. h August, 2013 SHRI MAN SINGH Through: ..... Appellant Mr.L.B.Rai, Advocate. versus RAMJI DAS ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J (ORAL) C.M. No.12967/2013 (for exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. C.M. No.12968/2013 (for delay) 1. This is an application seeking condonation of 88 days delay in re-filing the appeal.2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 88 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned as sufficient cause has been shown.3. The application stands disposed of. R.S.A. No.174/2013 & C.M. No.12966/2013 (for stay) 1. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the following substantial questions of law arise in the present regular second appeal : A. Whether a person is not entitled for protection by the court that is in settled possession o...
Shri Anil Goel Vs. Shri Ghanshyam Goel and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:26. 08.2013 + FAO(OS) 365/2013, C.M. 12309/2013 (for stay) SHRI ANIL GOEL Appellant Through: Sh. K.K. Aggarwal and Sh. Rajiv Garg, Advocate. Versus SHRI GHANSHYAM GOEL AND ORS. .Respondent Through: None. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. This is a regular first appeal from the order of the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) No.2946/2011, whereby a decree for partition under Order XV, Code of Civil Procedure, was passed declaring the plaintiff and the four defendants as having a 1/5th share in the suit property, i.e. No.C-10/11-A, Krishna Nagar, Delhi.2. The plaintiff, Ghanshyam Goel, and the four defendants - Anil Goel, Virendra Goel, Sunil Goel and Madhuri Mittal are siblings, and the four sons and daughter of the late Asa Ram Goel (hereafter the father). The five individuals in question are the only legal heirs of Asa Ram Goel; a fact that no party...
B.K. Pandey Vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Through the Commissioner ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-2013
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) The applicant has sought the following relief:- (i) That the Honble Tribunal may further graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dt. 1.6.2012 and Memorandum dt. 3.1.2012, declaring to the effect that the same are illegal, arbitrary and against the rules and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to re-instate the applicant as Principal in K.V.S. with all the consequential benefits deeming no order dt. 1.6.2012 has not passed with arrears of pay and allowances. (ii) Any other relief which the Honble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant. 2. Facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed in Kendriya Vidyala Sangathan (KVS) to the post of TGT (Maths) in the year 1983. On 07.08.1990 the respondents issued an offer of appointment to the applicant as PGT (Maths). In the aforesaid appointment order the following conditions had been laid down:- 5. This offer of appointment i...
Raj Kumar Jha and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-2013
$~1 to 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: August 23, 2013 + W.P.(C) 6313/2012 RAJ KUMAR JHA AND ORS Represented by: ..... Petitioners Mr.A.K.Behera, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Himanshu Bajaj, Advocate for R-1 & R-2 Ms.Megha Bharara, Advocate for Ms.Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate for GNCTD W.P.(C) 6366/2012 RAVINDER KUMAR PANDEY Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.A.K.Behera, Advocate versus UOI & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Himanshu Bajaj, Advocate for R-1 & R-2 Ms.Sana Ansari, Advocate for Ms.Zubeda Begum, Advocate for R-3 W.P.(C) 6365/2012 RAJVEER SINGH Represented by: W.P.(C) 6313/2012 & connected matters ..... Petitioner versus UOI & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Himanshu Bajaj, Advocate for R-1 & R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.(Oral) 1. Three Original Application Nos.2367/2012, 2368/2012 and 2369/2012 filed by t...
Rajiv Gupta Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-2013
#39 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1415/2013 & CM APPL. 2673/2013 RAJIV GUPTA Through ..... Petitioner Ms. Leena with Mr. Fazal Ahmad, Advocates Versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent Through Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate Date of Decision:23. d August, 2013 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. Present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to respondent-DDA to allot Flat No. 108, Second Floor, Pocket 2, Sector 23, Rohini, Delhi to the petitioner as well as to quash and set aside letter dated 8th November, 2012 issued by respondentDDA.2. The facts of the present case are that on 3rd October, 1979 petitioner applied for MIG flat under New Pattern Scheme, 1979.3. On 29th November, 2002 petitioner was declared successful in a computerized draw and allotted Flat No. 74, Ground Floor, Pocket 2, Sector 8, Rohini, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Flat No.74'...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »