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.
Krishna Kaushik Vs. Suraj Bhan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:22. d August, 2013 % + RFA 159/1997 KRISHNA KAUSHIK Through: ..... Appellant Mr. A.K. Pandey, Adv. versus SURAJ BHAN Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Shobhaa Gupta, Adv. for LRs CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J 1.The appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 24 th January, 1997 of the Court of the Addl. District Judge, Delhi of dismissal of Suit No.806/1994 filed by the appellant/plaintiff for recovery of possession of property on land ad measuring 70 sq. yds. out of 2028, Village Pilanji, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi and for recovery of mesne profits/damages for use and occupation.2. The appeal was admitted for hearing. Vide interim order dated 5 th March, 1998 the respondent/defendant was restrained from creating any third party interest in the property. The said order was on 13 th August, 1998 made absolute till the disposal of the appeal; it was further ordered that the respondent/defendant w...
Anjana Sharma and ors. Vs. Shishu Bharti Vidyalaya and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 7392/2012 & CM No. 18917/2012 (for directions) 22nd August , 2013 % ANJANA SHARMA & ORS. Through: ......Petitioners Mr. Bharat Gupta, Adv. for petitioner no.1. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Adv. VERSUS SHISHU BHARTI VIDYALAYA AND ORS ...... Respondents Through: Mr. R.K.Mishra, Adv. for R-1 and 2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. New counsel Mr. Bharat Gupta, Advocate appears for petitioner no.1 and states that he will file vakalatnama during the course of the day and that petitioner no.1 has instructed him not to pursue the petition. Accordingly, this writ petition will stand dismissed as not pressed on behalf of petitioner no.1.2. Counsel for petitioners Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate states that petitioners are only claiming the relief of grant of benefits in terms of the 6 th Pay Commission Report and as directed to be implemented in all schools of Delhi by the ci...
Bses Yamuna Power Limited Vs. Tulsi Ram Arya and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:22. 08.2013 LPA 219/2013 TULSI RAM ARYA ....Appellant versus THE CHAIRMAN DELHI TRANSCO LIMITED & ORS. . Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr H. D. Sharma & Mr Dev P. Bhardwaj. For the Respondents : Mr Anupam Varma & Mr Nikhil Sharma for R-3/BYPL. Mr Sumeet Pushkarna for R-4/Pension Trust. AND + LPA 495/2013 BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED versus .... Appellant TULSI RAM ARYA AND ORS. . Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr Anupam Varma & Mr Nikhil Sharma. For the Respondents : Mr H.D. Sharma & Mr Dev P. Bhardwaj for R-1. Mr Sumeet Pushkarna for R-4/Pension Trust. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J 1.These cross appeals are directed against the judgment dated 31.01.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 618/2001. The ...
Jai Prakash Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: August 14, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: August 22, 2013 + W.P.(C) 6900/2001 JAI PRAKASH Represented by: .....Petitioner Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate versus UOI & ORS. .....Respondents Represented by: Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Jai Prakash, the petitioner, challenges the judgment and order dated September 11, 2001 dismissing OA No.64/2001 filed by him. His claim in the Original Application was to be treated at par with one Sh.R.C.Gupta and Sh.B.N.Laha and thus be granted promotion as on September 04, 1995 with all consequential benefits to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil). He also prayed that the seniority list of Superintending Engineers circulated on September 25, 1998 be modified accordingly.2. The factual backdrop in which claim of Jai Prakash needed to be considered, and as a matter of fact was considered b...
United India Insurance Co Ltd Vs. Afsar Anwar and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:22. d August, 2013 MAC.APP. 446/2011 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. K.L. Nandwani, Adv. versus AFSAR ANWAR & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv. for R1 to R3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Since the issues raised instant appeal are similar as raised in MAC. APP. 445/2011, being connected, which has been dismissed vide judgment dated 22.08.2013.2. Consequently, instant appeal is also dismissed. CM. NO. 9811/2011 In view of the above, instant application has become infructuous and dismissed as such. SURESH KAIT, J AUGUST 22 2013 jg...
J.B. Chaudhry Vs. Indian Overseas Bank And ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 7866/2012 22nd August , 2013 % J.B. CHAUDHRY Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Sewa Ram, Advocate. VERSUS INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Kunal Tandon, 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 an employee of the respondent No.1-bank, impugns the chargesheet dated 2.8.2012 basically on the ground that same could not have been issued after the petitioner had superannuated from service.2. I have had an occasion to consider this aspect in detail in the case of Prof. Marmar Mukhopadhyay Vs. Union of India and Ors. in W.P.(C) No2566/2007 decided on 18.7.2013. In this judgment, I have given the reasons as to why enquiry proceedings can be initiated and continued even after superannuation of an employee. The first reason which I have given is that every entity has a right to withhold the...
Mohd.Saleem Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :10. h July, 2013 DECIDED ON :22. d August, 2013 + CRL.A.1040 /2012 MOHD.SALEEM Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Mukesh Kalia with Mr.Hari Sharan Singh, Advocates. VERSUS STATE Through : ..... Respondent Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Mohd.Saleem (the appellant) challenges correctness of the judgment dated 01.08.2012 in Sessions Case No.60/2009 arising out of FIR No.435/2007 registered at Police Station I.P.Estate by which he was held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 392/34 IPC. Vide separate order dated 01.08.2012 he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years with fine `25,000/-.2. Allegations against the appellant-Mohd.Saleem were that on 06.09.2007 at around 07.00 P.M., he with his associates Mohd. Nasir @ Pehlwan, Mohd.Shahnawaz @ Shanu and Mohd.Nazim committed robbery and deprived Nema Ram and Saravan of their bag containing cash `6,05,000/-, cheques...
Tulsi Ram Arya Vs. the Chairman Delhi Transco Limited and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:22. 08.2013 LPA 219/2013 TULSI RAM ARYA ....Appellant versus THE CHAIRMAN DELHI TRANSCO LIMITED & ORS. . Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr H. D. Sharma & Mr Dev P. Bhardwaj. For the Respondents : Mr Anupam Varma & Mr Nikhil Sharma for R-3/BYPL. Mr Sumeet Pushkarna for R-4/Pension Trust. AND + LPA 495/2013 BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED versus .... Appellant TULSI RAM ARYA AND ORS. . Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr Anupam Varma & Mr Nikhil Sharma. For the Respondents : Mr H.D. Sharma & Mr Dev P. Bhardwaj for R-1. Mr Sumeet Pushkarna for R-4/Pension Trust. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J 1.These cross appeals are directed against the judgment dated 31.01.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 618/2001. The ...
Jaswinder Singh Vs. Mrigendra Pritam Vikramsingh Steiner and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:13. 08.2013 Decided on :22. 08.2013 + FAO (OS) 30/2013 JASWINDER SINGH ..... Appellant versus MRIGENDRA PRITAM VIKRAMSINGH STEINER & ORS ..... Respondents + FAO (OS) 31/2013 GEETANJALEI SINGH & ANR ..... Appellants versus MRIGENDRA PRITAM VIKRAMSINGH STEINER & ORS ..... Respondents Appearance: Mr. Arun Khosla with Ms. Shreeanka Kakkar, Advocates for appellants. Mr. A.K. Vali with Mr. Ramesh N. Keswani and Mr. Tuhin, Advocates for respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT % For detailed judgment, the decision dated 22.08.2013 in FAO(OS) 684/2010 may be referred to. S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE) NAJMI WAZIRI (JUDGE) AUGUST 22 2013 FAO(OS)30/13 & FAO(OS) 31/13 Page 1...
The Public Information Officer and anr Vs. Shri Somen Kumar Bose
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Decision:22. 08.2013 W.P.(C) 2491/2010 and CM No. 4980/2010 (stay) THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER & ANR ...... Petitioner Through: Mr S.K. Dubey, Adv. Versus SHRI SOMEN KUMAR BOSE Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN ..... Respondent JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(ORAL) The respondent before this Court filed an application dated 30.12.2008 with the CPIO, Department of Posts, seeking information on as many as 72 points, regarding suspension of one Mr K.M. Somasundram, who was suspended on 03.11.1995. The hand-written application runs into as many as 38 pages. Since no reply was received by him from the CPIO, he preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. Vide response dated 30.3.2009, the First Appellate Authority informed him that it was not practically possible to supply the information sought by him within the stipulated time period and that in any case, a large part of the information had already been supplied ...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »