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.
Khoday India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Rakesh Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA(OS) 30/2013 KHODAY INDIA LTD. & ANR. Through: ..... Appellants Mr.Gopal Jain, Advocate. versus RAKESH GUPTA Through: % ..... Respondent Mr.Sanjay Jain, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Lalit Asthana, Advocate. Date of Decision : August 12, 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI JUDGMENT (ORAL) : REVA KHETRAPAL, J.1. This appeal seeks to assail the judgment dated 07.11.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge whereunder the learned Single Judge rejected the application for leave to defend filed by the Appellant No.2 and decreed the suit in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellants No.1 and 2 jointly and severally in the sum of ` 1,80,81,800/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty Lakhs Eighty One Thousand and Eight Hundred only) with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of the institution till the date of recovery.2. The background facts are that the Appellant no.1, Khoday India Limited had entered i...
Gulshan Kumar Batra Sreo (Retd.) Vs. the Honble Lt. Governor of Delhi ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2013
G. George Paracken: This Review Application has been filed by the Original Applicant in OA No. 2522/2010 which was disposed of vide order dated 04.01.2012. The operative part of the said order reads as under: 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. No doubt, there is a delay of about 13 years in initiating the departmental proceedings against the applicant. The main ground taken by the applicant to challenge the Respondents action in initiating the departmental proceedings against him also of delay. Now the first question is whether the delay was unexplained or undue. The second question is with regard to the gravity of the alleged misconduct committed by the applicant. As regards the question of delay is concerned, of course, the Apex Court in Bani Singhs case (supra) has held that unexplained long delay is good and sufficient reason to set aside the memorandum of charge. However, the question is whether the delay was totally unexplained. Even though the alleged inciden...
India Islamic Cultural Centre Vs. Deepak Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2013
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.156/2013 Decided on :12. 08.2013 INDIA ISLAMIC CULTURAL CENTRE Through: Appellant Mr.T.R.Kukreja, Advocate. Versus DEEPAK KUMAR 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 04.07.2013 passed by Sh.Sandeep Yadav, learned ADJ, Saket Courts, New Delhi dismissing the appeal of the appellant being RCA No.65/2013 and upholding the judgment and decree dated 08.08.2012 passed by the Civil Judge decreeing the suit for recovery of money.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit under Order 37 CPC for recovery of a sum of `2,41,979/-. The learned trial court, on considering the facts of the case, issued summons in the suit. The defendant was served. However, none appeared on behalf of the defendant. The defendant was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 05.03.2011. The appellant/defendant moved an application ...
B.M.Gupta Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: July 29, 2013 Pronounced on: August 08, 2013 + (i) CRL.M.C. 473/2005 B.M. GUPTA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Mohit Mathur, Advocate versus STATE & ANR. Through: + (ii) ..... Respondents Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State Mr. Aman Lekhi, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Mudit Jain, Mr. Abhishek & Mr. Subadhra Shukla, Advocates CRL.M.C. 586/2005 V.JAIN Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Sandip Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amarjit Singh, Mr. Gurvinder Singh & Mr. Shiv Gupta, Advocates versus STATE & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State Mr. Aman Lekhi, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Mudit Jain, Mr. Abhishek & Mr. Subadhra Shukla, Advocates + (iii) CRL.M.C. 599/2005 VINOD Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Sunil Sethi, Advocate versus STATE & ANR. Through: + (iv) ..... Respondents Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-Sta...
Vinod Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: July 29, 2013 Pronounced on: August 08, 2013 + (i) CRL.M.C. 473/2005 B.M. GUPTA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Mohit Mathur, Advocate versus STATE & ANR. Through: + (ii) ..... Respondents Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State Mr. Aman Lekhi, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Mudit Jain, Mr. Abhishek & Mr. Subadhra Shukla, Advocates CRL.M.C. 586/2005 V.JAIN Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Sandip Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amarjit Singh, Mr. Gurvinder Singh & Mr. Shiv Gupta, Advocates versus STATE & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State Mr. Aman Lekhi, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Mudit Jain, Mr. Abhishek & Mr. Subadhra Shukla, Advocates + (iii) CRL.M.C. 599/2005 VINOD Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Sunil Sethi, Advocate versus STATE & ANR. Through: + (iv) ..... Respondents Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-Sta...
A.JaIn Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: July 29, 2013 Pronounced on: August 08, 2013 + (i) CRL.M.C. 473/2005 B.M. GUPTA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Mohit Mathur, Advocate versus STATE & ANR. Through: + (ii) ..... Respondents Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State Mr. Aman Lekhi, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Mudit Jain, Mr. Abhishek & Mr. Subadhra Shukla, Advocates CRL.M.C. 586/2005 V.JAIN Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Sandip Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amarjit Singh, Mr. Gurvinder Singh & Mr. Shiv Gupta, Advocates versus STATE & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State Mr. Aman Lekhi, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Mudit Jain, Mr. Abhishek & Mr. Subadhra Shukla, Advocates + (iii) CRL.M.C. 599/2005 VINOD Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Sunil Sethi, Advocate versus STATE & ANR. Through: + (iv) ..... Respondents Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-Sta...
Mukesh Jha Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:08. 08.2013 LPA 510/2013 BRIDGE AND ROOF COMPANY INDIA LTD. EXECUTIVES ASSOCIATION versus .....Appellant UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents AND + LPA 511/2013 MUKESH JHA .....Appellant versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Kirti Uppal, Sr. Advocate with Mr Deepak Bhattacharya and Mr Sujeet Kumar Mishra in LPA No.510/2013. Mr A.K. Panda, Sr. Advocate with Ms Harman Guliani and Mr Sanjeev Jha in LPA No. 511/2013. For the Respondent : Mr Rajeev Mehra, ASG with Mr Jatan Singh, Mr Kartikey Mahajan, Mr Soayib Qureshi and Ms Shruti Aggarwal for UOI. Mr Ashish Wad and Ms Kavika Bhutani for R-4. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J 1.These two appeals are directed against the order dated 11.07.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge in the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1722/...
Suresh Kumar Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
$-51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON :8. h AUGUST, 2013 + CRL.A. 1339/2012 & CRL.M.B. 2064/2012 SURESH KUMAR Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Ranvir Vats, Advocate. versus BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. & ANR. ..... Respondents Through : Mr.Neeraj Grover, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.Garg, J.(Open Court) 1. Suresh Kumar (the appellant) challenges a judgment dated 18.10.2012 in Complaint Case No.221/10/08 under Section 135 Electricity Act, 2003 by which he was convicted for committing the offence under Section 135 of the Act. The civil liability was assessed to ` 9,73,679/-. By an order dated 25.10.2012, he was sentenced to undergo RI for six months with fine ` 14,60,518/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for three months.2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 03.03.2008 at 01.30 P.M. a joint inspection team inspected the premises i.e. Khasra No.5, Village Kamruddin Nagar, New Delhi. One single phase electronic meter bearing No. 2...
Pushpa Sharma Vs. State Nct of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
$-50 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON :8. h AUGUST, 2013 + CRL.A. 163/2012 & CRL.M.B. 271/2012 PUSHPA SHARMA Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Vinod Kumar, Advocate. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP. Ms.Anjali Sharma, Adv. For R2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.Garg, J.(Open Court) 1. Pushpa Sharma (the appellant) challenges the correctness of judgment dated 19.07.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Complaint Case No. 1029/2006 PS Mehrauli under Section 135 Electricity Act, 2003 by which she was convicted for committing the offence under Section 135 of the Act. By an order dated 10.01.2012, she was sentenced to undergo RI for six months. Civil liability of ` 1,18,175/- was assessed.2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 11.03.2006 at about 01.10 P.M. premises bearing No. 177 EA, Ward No. 2, Shop No. 51, Mehrauli, New Delhi were inspected and it was found that one single phase electronic meter was ...
Shri Basant Kumar Sharma Vs. Government of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:08. 08.2013 LPA No.231/2013 SHRI BASANT KUMAR SHARMA ..... Appellant versus GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. .Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr P. Ramesh Kumar For the Respondent : Mr Saqib & Ms Shipra Shukla, for R-1 & 2. Mr H. S. Parihar, Advocate for R-3/RBI. Mr Rajiv Kapur with Ms Vatsala Rai for R-4/SBI. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J 1.The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07.02.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3760/1995. The appellant had preferred the writ petition, inter alia, praying for quashing and setting aside the directions issued by the Finance Ministry by the letter dated 23.03.1995. In addition, the appellant had sought various prayers which were in the nature of claiming damages from the respondents. The said writ petition was dismis...
- ‹ Prev
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- Next ›
- Last »