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.
Saroj Devi (Now Deceased) Through L.Rs Vs. Bank of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:14. 08.2013 + W.P.(C) 3710/2013, C.M. APPL.6941/2013 SAROJ DEVI (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS ..... Petitioner Through : Sh. K.K. Jha, Advocate and Sh. Rameshwar Prasad, LR. versus BANK OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through : Sh. S.V. Tyagi, Advocate, for Bank of India. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. The present Writ Petition questions an order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) dated 12.12.2012 in M.A. 426/2012. The DRAT rejected the petitioners appeal, which in turn had questioned the Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) order refusing the request for an enquiry into the petitioners indigence in respect of payment of Court Fees, in support of the Counter Claim preferred.2. The brief facts are that the original borrower, Smt. Saroj Devi was impleaded as defendant/respondent in recovery proceedings filed by the Bank of India (BOI...
M/S Bansal Udyog Vs. N.C.T. of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
$~23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10213/2005 Decided on 14th August, 2013 M/S BANSAL UDYOG Through ..... Petitioner :Mr. Pravin Sharma and Ms. Kanika Sharma, Advs. versus N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR. Through ..... Respondents :Mr. A.K. Mishra, Adv. for respondent no. 2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK A.K. PATHAK, J.(ORAL) 1. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner management has challenged the award dated 5th July, 2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby petitioner has been directed to reinstate respondent no. 2 workman with 50% back wages and continuity of service and other legal benefits.2. Factual matrix as unfolded is that respondent no. 2 raised an industrial dispute with the Labour Department, which was referred to the Labour Court by Secretary (Labour) vide reference no. F.24(4298)/92-Lab. Dated 21st December, 1991 for adjudication in the following terms o...
State Vs. Arun
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 120/2012 Date of Decision:14. 08.2013 STATE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Addl. Standing Counsel versus ARUN ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.1. The present Criminal Leave to Appeal has been preferred by the petitioner/State under Section 378 Cr.P.C. to challenge the judgment dated 08.10.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, New Delhi whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondent from all the charges framed against him under Sections 363/ 364/ 365/ 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1806 (hereinafter referred to as IPC).2. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner/ State, submits that the learned Trial Judge has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has been able to prove that the deceased was lastly seen with the accused by the...
Satish Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
$-2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2917/2013 Date of decision:14. h August, 2013 % SATISH Through : versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through : ..... Petitioner Mr. Ajit Kakkar, Adv. ..... Respondent Ms. Barkha Babbar, Adv. for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J (Oral) 1. The writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari and direction to quash the order dated 12th February, 2013 passed by respondent No.3/Recruiting Officer Coast Guard whereby the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Naik GD in the Indian Coast Guard pursuant to a Selection Process conducted in 2012 was rejected on the medical grounds. Being aggrieved, the petitioner assails the result of the medical examination conducted at INS Chilka, Nivarani Hospital on 12th February, 2013 whereby he was found medically unfit for enrolment on the ground that he was s...
Balwan Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.523/2012 Date of decision:14. h August, 2013 % BALWAN SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Ms.Avni Singh, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Asish Nischal, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J (Oral) 1. Petitioner has assailed the order dated 19th October, 2008 passed by the Commandant, 136 Battalion whereby he accepted the report dated 19th August, 2008 of the Enquiry Officer who found the petitioner guilty of two charges for which disciplinary proceedings were conducted against the petitioner. As a result the petitioner was dismissed from service by the same order The petitioner has also impugned order dated 26th March, 2009 rejecting his appeal and the order dated 23rd March, 2010 passed by the Revisional authority rejecting his revision petition.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are briefly noted hereafter, the petitioner was...
Store One Retail India Ltd. Vs. Century 21 Infrastructure Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:7. h August, 2013 Date of Decision:13. h August, 2013 % + CO.PET. 188/2010 & Co.Appl.824/2010 STORE ONE RETAIL INDIA LTD. Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Prateek Dwivedi, Advocate. versus CENTURY 2 INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Praveen Chauhan with Mr. Vijay Kumar and Mr. Shravan Sahny, Advocates. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR R.V. EASWAR, J.: In this petition filed under sections 433(e)/434(1)/439(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act), the only issue, which is a preliminary issue, which arises is whether the petition is maintainable against the respondent-company.2. The petitioner, Store-One Retail India Ltd. (formerly known as Piramyd Retail Ltd.) entered into a term sheet on 10-1-2007 with the respondent-company, Century 21 Infrastructure Limited, hereinafter referred to either as respondent or as Infrastructure, under which the respondent would provide the petitioner a chargeable area of approximately 56,250 ...
National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/S. Myson Electronics ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C. S. (OS) No. 1164/2002 Date of Decision:13. 08.2013 NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. ....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sanat Kumar with Mr.Sahil Mullick, Advs. Versus M/S. MYSON ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. & ORS. ...Defendant Through: Mr. K. K. Jha, Adv. for D1, D3 to D5. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 78,49,274.89/- (Rupees Seventy Eight Lakh Forty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Four and Paise Eighty Nine Only) under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plainitiffs case is as follows:2. The plaintiff is a Govt. Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Delhi. It is a Govt. of India Enterprise engaged in the development and growth of the Small Scale Units (SSU) throughout the country. The plaintiff states that it assists these small scale industrial units in a number of ways, one of which is to extend raw material...
Gati Cargo Management Service Vs. Sbl Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:6. h August, 2013 Date of Decision:13. h August, 2013 % + Co.Appl.1297-1298/2013 in CO.PET. 321/2001 GATI CARGO MANAGEMENT SERVICE ..... Petitioner Through Mr Barun Kumar Sinha, Adv. for workmen versus SBL INDUSTRIES LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr Arun Kathpalia with Mr Amit Goel, Advs. for Ex-Management CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR R.V. EASWAR, J.: Co.Appl.1298/2013 Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Co.Appl.1297/2013 This is an application filed by SBL Shramik Samittee, hereinafter referred to as workmen under Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 for recall of the order passed by this court on 3.7.2013 in C.A. No. (M) 83/2013 and to dismiss the said application which was filed by one P.C. Sen (ex-management). The present applicant is a federation of all trade unions engaged in union activities in SBL Industries Ltd. (SBL), the respondent in the main Co.Petn.No. 321/2001, which is sought to be revived.2. Before I pr...
In the Matter Of: Jhalani Tools India Ltd. Vs. -------
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CO.PET. 539 of 1998 Reserved on: July 19, 2013 Decision on: August 13, 2013 TATA IRON & STEEL CO. LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. A.N. Das, Advocate versus JHALANI TOOLS INDIA LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashutosh Dubey and Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Advocates for exmanagement. Mr. Manish Bishnoi, Advocate for the Official Liquidator. Mr. Anil Nauriya, Ms. Sumita Hazarika & Ms. Ezekial Jarain, Advocates for the workmen (Kundli Unit) in CA 89.of 2013. Mr. Umesh Yadav, Advocate for IDBI Bank. Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate for Dena Bank and Consortium of Banks. Mr. Angad Kochhar, Advocate for J.P. Morgan Chase Bank. AND CO.PET. 18 of 2001 IN THE MATTER OF: JHALANI TOOLS INDIA LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashutosh Dubey and Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Advocates for ex-management. Mr. Manish Bishnoi, Advocate for the Official Liquidator. Mr. Anil Nauriya, Ms. Sumita Hazar...
Maharishi Solar Tech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Icici Bank Ltd. and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
* + THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS (OS) No. 312/2005 Date of Decision:13. 08.2013 MAHARISHI SOLAR TECH PVT. LTD. Through: ......Plaintiff Mr. K.P Mani, Mr. Sumit Goswami, Mr. M.A. Niyazi & Mr. Manish Kumar, Advs. Versus ICICI BANK LTD. & ORS ............Defendants Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the instant suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction and in the alternative, recovery of Rs. 29,52,954.67 (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakh Fifty Two Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Four and Sixty Seven Paise). The brief facts are that the plaintiff company Maharishi Solar Tech Pvt. Ltd. is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the manufacture, production, development, import/export etc. of all instruments, machines and appliances for use with solar energy and any other conventional energy. Defendants no. 1 to 5 are the bankers of the plaintiff company, and defendant no. 6 is the Employees State Insurance Corporation ...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »