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.
Smt. Sukho Devi (Deceased) Through Lr???s Vs. Smt. Laxmi Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:13. h August, 2013 % + RFA No.211/1994 SMT. SUKHO DEVI (DECEASED) THROUGH LRs .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rjeshwar Tyagi, Adv. Versus SMT. LAXMI DEVI & ORS. ....Respondents Through: Mr. Anand Maheshwari, Adv. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J 1.The appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 3 rd December, 1993 of the Court of the Addl. District Judge, Delhi in Suit No.568/1993 filed by the appellant for partition of property No.3481 Gali Kartar Singh Subzimandi, Delhi.2. The appeal was admitted for hearing and vide ex parte ad interim order dated 2nd May, 1994 the parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of possession as on 2 nd May, 1994. The said ex parte order was confirmed vide order dated 13th February, 1995. The appellant/plaintiff died during the pendency of the appeal and no steps were taken for substitution of her legal representatives. The respondents applied for dismis...
State Vs. Sanjay @khallu
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Judgment:13.8.2013 CRL.L.P. 238/2012 STATE .... Petitioner Through: Mr.Sunil Sharma, APP. versus SANJAY @ KHALLU Through: ..... Respondent None. CORAM: HONBLE JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR, J HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) Crl.M.A. No.5787/2012 (condonation of 53 days delay) 1 In view of the averments made in the application, the delay of 53 days in filing the leave to appeal is condoned. Application is allowed. CRL.L.P. 238/2012 2 The State has filed the present leave to appeal to assail the judgment dated 16.12.2011 vide which the learned Additional Sessions Judge had acquitted the respondent of the charged offence under Sections 302/201/34 Indian Penal Code (IPC).3. The version of the prosecution was unfolded in the first DD which was recorded in the local police station at the Lodhi Colony on 02.4.2002 at about 6.30 PM which was to the effect that one Rajesh aged 38 years, 5 feet 2 inches in height had lef...
Shri Som Dutt Vs. Smt. Sharma Devi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA 198/2009 % 13.08.2013 SHRI SOM DUTT ..... Appellant Through Mr. Kamal Gupta, Advocate for Ms. Reeta Chaudhary, Advocate versus SMT. SHARMA DEVI & ANR. Through None ..... Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) Review Petition No. 352/2013 and CM Nos. 11079/2013, 11144/2013 (condonation of delay), 11082/2013 (rectification of title) 1. The length which some litigants go somehow or the other to keep a false litigation alive is not unknown. The present case is one such case.2. The review petitioner was the plaintiff in the trial court. Review petitioner was the appellant in the present case because his suit was dismissed by the judgment of the trial court dated 19.5.2009.3. The appellant-plaintiff/review petitioner claims ownership of the property being WZ-75, Village Keshopur, Delhi on the ground that the said Review Petition No. 352/2013 in RFA 198/2009 Page...
Shri Rajendra Wanchoo Vs. the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) No.7383/2011 13th August, 2013 % SHRI RAJENDRA WANCHOO Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate with Mr. Mohd. Aqil Saifi, Advocate. versus THE STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ayushya Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms. Ritika Jhurani, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM: HON'BLE 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-Sh. Rajendra Wanchoo seeks implementation of the order dated 3.5.2011 passed by the Deputy Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. By the order dated 3.5.2011, the Deputy Chief Commissioner has directed that the post of Chief General Manager (Personnel & Administration) (for short CGM (P&A)) be deemed to be identified for persons with disabilities. Petitioner is an orthopedically handicapped person having about 50% locomotor disability. Pe...
State Vs. Saurabh Vashisht
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. No.141/2013 & Crl.M.A.No.3457/2013 IN THE MATTER OF : STATE Date of Decision 13.08.2013 ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Naveen Sharma, APP for State with ASI Surender Pal Hudda, PS Krishna Nagar. versus SAURABH VASHISHT ..... Respondent Through : None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI 1 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/State under Section 378 Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for grant of leave to assail the judgment dated 27.9.2010 passed by the learned ASJ in SC No.181/2012, whereunder the respondent has been acquitted in case FIR No.528/2008 registered under Section 376/506 IPC at PS Krishna Nagar, Delhi.2. The brief facts of the case as culled out from the impugned judgment are that in October, 2007, the prosecutrix had come in contact with the respondent through internet chatting, whereafter both the parties had started meeting each other and the respondent had expressed to her that he was in love with her and ha...
S. Vijayarani Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:13. 08.2013 LPA No.361/2013 & CM Nos.8453-54/2013 S. VIJAYARANI ..... Appellant . Respondents Versus UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Dr K.S. Chauhan, Mr Ajit Kumar Ekka and Mr Ravi Prakash. : Mr Mohinder J.S. Rupal. CORAM:HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.05.2013 delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3420/2013. The appellant had filed the said writ petition being aggrieved by the letter dated 20.05.2013 whereby the appellant was informed that her detention in the LLB first semester had been confirmed and that the provisional admission and continuance given to her with respect to the second semester stood cancelled with immediate effect. By virtue of the said letter, the appella...
Smt. Deepak Sandhu Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) The applicant has sought the following relief:- It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to quash/set aside the orders dated 12.3.2010 passed by the respondents, rejecting the representation of the applicant and further direct the respondents to promote the applicant to the post of Additional Secretary (Selection Grade) in the grade of Rs.67000-79000 w.e.f. November 2004 and further direct the respondents to consider the applicant for promotion to the Secretary level post by holding review DPC w.e.f. January 2006 with all consequential benefits or may pass any other orders or directions as may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 2. Facts of the case are that the applicant was an officer of Indian Information Service of 1971 batch. She had gradually risen in the service and had become due for promotion to Additional Secretary equivalent post in 2004. Three posts of this level fell vacant between Janu...
Chief Secretary Gnctd and Others Vs. NaraIn Singh and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J): Both the above MA 279/2013 in OA No.684/2011 filed by the respondents and OA No.2420/2012, filed by the applicant, were heard together, as agreed by both the parties. MA No.279/2013 in OA No.684/2011: The applicant filed the OA No.684/2011 seeking to quash the Charge Memorandum No.F7(A)/28/2010/DOV/10589 dated 29.11.2010 proposing to hold an inquiry against him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, on various grounds. This Tribunal vide its order dated 07.12.2011 while dismissing the said OA, observed as follows: 7. However, before we part with this order, we do observe that the applicant has already retired from service on 30.11.2010 and the stay granted by this Tribunal in this case has caused further delay in consultation of the departmental proceedings already initiated against him. We, therefore, direct that the respondents shall finalise the proceedings against the applicant as early as possible but, in any case, within a period of six months from...
Ex Dfr. Chaman Lal Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
Notices had been issued to un-served and un-represented respondent nos. 4 to 7 and 10 by registered post on 11.05.2013. Neither the registered envelopes nor the notices have been returned after the expiry of 30 days. In view of the above, the service upon the respondent nos. 4 to 7 and 10 is deemed to have been effected. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced postal receipt to show that the notices have been sent to the concerned respondents by registered post. The same be placed on record. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of his non-consideration for promotion to the post of Naib Risaldar. He has crossed the age of 44 years. The petitioner was enrolled in the Armoured Corps on 27.03.1984. He was promoted to the rank of Dafadar on 14.08.2005 and was due for next promotion to the rank of Naib Risaldar as per his seniority and rank. The petitioner became eligible for the post of Naib Risaldar after qualifying for the promotion cadre in time. While considering the persons for...
Shankar Goswami Vs. Sarita Goswami
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on: August 13, 2013 CM(M) No.804/2013 & CMs No.12389/2013 & 12390/2013 SHANKAR GOSWAMI Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Om Prakash, Adv. versus SARITA GOSWAMI Through ..... Respondent None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 16 th January, 2013 passed by the Civil Judge whereby the application of the petitioner (defendant in the suit) under Order IX, Rule 7 CPC for setting aside the order dated 12th December, 2011 was dismissed.2. The suit was filed by the respondent for recovery of possession, damages and mesne profit, who is the owner of the property.3. The application of the petitioner was opposed by the respondent by stating that even the petitioner was not appearing in the matter on earlier dates also when the matter was listed i.e. 29th July, 2011 and 8th September, 2011 the petitioner did not appear deliberately as some interim dir...
- ‹ Prev
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- Next ›
- Last »