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.
Prithvi Raj SoIn Since Decd Thru Lrs Vs. Anjana Kumari SoIn and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:8. h August, 2013 + RFA 83/2013 & CM No.2334/2013 (for stay) PRITHVI RAJ SOIN SINCE DECD THRU LRS ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Indu Shekhar & Mr. Ankush Shekhar, Advs. Versus ANJANA KUMARI SOIN & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mrs. Inderjeet Saroop, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. This first appeal was preferred against the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2012 in Civil Suit No.14/2007 (Unique Case I.D. No.02401C0047452007) of the Court of Additional District Judge-09, Tis Hazari Courts, District Central, Delhi. The said suit was filed by the respondents No.1 to 6 against the appellants and the respondents No.7 to 14 for partition of property No.757, Ward No.6, Mehrauli, New Delhi. The learned Additional District Judge by the impugned judgment has passed a preliminary decree for partition by metes and bounds declaring the respondents No.1 to 6 to be collectively entitled to one-sixth ...
Seth Hotels Private Ltd Vs. Dda
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
15 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 865/2012 & CM Appl. Nos. 1924, 10429, 10786/2012, 5091/2013 & Crl.M.A. 7862/2013 SETH HOTELS PRIVATE LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ramesh Chandra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.L.Garg, Mr. Rajiv Goel and Mr. Ajay Garg, Advocates Mr. R.S. Sharma, Advocate for Applicants/Mr. Satish Kumar Seth, Mr. Rajinder Kumar Seth versus DDA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Arun Birbal, Adv. for DDA Mr. Atul Bandhu, Adv. for LRs of late Mr. M.K. Seth Date of Decision:08. h August, 2013 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the letter dated 18 th January, 2012 issued by the respondent-DDA determining the allotment of hotel plot No. 17 at District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi hereinafter referred to as "aforesaid plot".2. The facts of the present case are that the aforesaid plot was purchased by M/s. Seth Fashion House in a...
Bridge and Roof Company India Ltd. Executives??? a Vs. Union of India ...
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/...
M/S Vogueserv International Pvt Ltd Vs. Rajesh GosaIn and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1436/2012 Reserved on:17. h July, 2013 Decided on:8. h August, 2013 % M/S VOGUESERV INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Rajat Wadhwa, Advocate. versus RAJESH GOSAIN & ORS Through: ..... Defendants Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia and Mr. Rahul, Advocates for Defendant Nos. 1 & 3. Mr. Rajesh Dwivedi, Advocate for Mr. A.K. De, Advocate for Defendant No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA I.A. No. 9538/2012 (by Plaintiff u/Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC) and I.A. No. 13187/2012 (by Defendant Nos. 1 & 3 u/Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC for vacation of order) in CS (OS) 1436/2012 1. The Plaintiff, a company incorporated under the Companies Act filed the suit against the Defendants, its ex-employees inter alia seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the Defendants restraining them from contacting or dealing with Companies namely STRAUSS innovations (Germany), BOLTZE (Germany), IMPRESSIONEN (Germany), SCHNEIDER (Germany), and DS PRODUKT...
Tahil Naraindass Vazirani and ors. Vs. Ravinder Kaur Sandhu and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:8. h August, 2013 % + RFA 193/2009 TAHIL NARAINDASS VAZIRANI & ORS. .... Appellants Through: Mr. Nikhil Singhvi & Mr. Arjun Syal, Advs. versus RAVINDER KAUR SANDHU & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ankit Jain, Adv. for R-1&2. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J 1.The appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 18 th February, 2009 of the Addl. District Judge, Delhi in Suit No.104/2004 filed by the appellants/plaintiffs to the extent it denies the reliefs claimed by the appellants/plaintiffs in the suit filed by them.2. Notice of the appeal was issued and the Trial Court record requisitioned. The respondent no.3 Dr. Jagdish Singh Teja failed to appear inspite of service through publication and though there is no formal order proceeding ex parte against him till now, he is now ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.3. Attempts made at amicable settlement of the disputes during the pendency of t...
Smt. Tara Balgopal Vs. Rajdhani College and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C) No. 6156/1998 8th August, 2013 SMT. TARA BALGOPAL Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Bhupesh Narula and Mr. Sunny Arora, Advocates. VERSUS RAJDHANI COLLEGE & ANR. Through: ...... Respondents Ms. Beenashaw Soni and Mr. Sant Ram, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Adv. for UGC. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. Petitioner was an employee of the respondent no.1-college. Through this writ petition petitioner claims monetary emoluments under various heads from the respondent no.1. The heads under which claims are made are arrears towards higher grade pay, leave encashment allowance, amount due on account of wrongful deductions made from the salary, LTC and so on. I may note that effectively, petitioner is seeking a money decree from the respondent no.1 under different heads. Although, ordinarily suits should be filed for such claims, however, considering that it is a...
Chuni Lal Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:08. 08.2013 + CRL.A. 262/2003 CHUNI LAL Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Chander Mohan Sharma, Advocate. versus STATE OF DELHI Through: + CRL.A. 304/2003 NIHAL SINGH Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for the State. ..... Appellant Mr. Chander Mohan Sharma, Advocate. versus STATE OF DELHI Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for the State. CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 8th April, 2003 in Sessions Case 116/2001 arising out of case FIR No. 302/96 under Section 307/34 IPC, PS Anand Parbat vide which the appellants were convicted for offence under Section 307/34 IPC and order on sentence dated 10th April, 2003, whereby both the convicts were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and were also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for...
M/S. Tcm Ltd. Vs. Mr. T.P. Murlidharan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:08. 08.2013 + W.P.(C) 4504/2012 M/S.TCM LTD ..... Petitioner Through : Sh. Rishi Agrawala, Ms. Misha Rohatgi and Ms. Malavika Lal, Advocates. versus MR. T.P.MURLIDHARAN AND ORS ..... Respondents Through : Sh. Arvind Kumar, Advocate, for Resp. No.1. Ms. Maneesha Dhir, Ms. Varsha Banerjee and Ms. Mithu Jain, Advocates, for Resp. No.3. Sh. Shwetank Sailakwal, for Sh. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. The present petition is directed against an order of 24.05.2012 by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR), admitting the appeal filed by the first respondent (hereafter referred to as Sh. Murlidharan).2. It is argued that the AAIFR fell into error in entertaining the appeal of Sh. Murlidharan. Learned counsel emphasised W.P.(C) 4504/2012 Page 1 that the past record established t...
Vidha Lal Vs. Kathak Kendra Thr Its Director and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 956/2012 & CM 2256/2013 (Stay) 8th August, 2013 % VIDHA LAL Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Sunder Khatri, Adv. VERSUS KATHAK KENDRA THR ITS DIRECTOR & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Meenal Kashyap, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Sarfaraz Khan, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition, petitioner Ms. Vidha Lal seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 31.1.2012 whereby petitioners services were terminated.2. It is an undisputed fact that petitioner was a contractual employee. The original contract of employment is dated 4.11.2010. That contract was for a period of one year and which was continued thereafter. Petitioner was a Kathak Dancer. In terms of the contract, petitioners services could be terminated by three months notice without assigning any reason and one months notice in case petitioner is found guilty of an act or omission or...
Pratigya Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C) No. 4464/2012 8th August, 2013 PRATIGYA Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Manish Verma, Advocate. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Puran Chand, Adv. for Mr. S. Rajappa, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition is filed by one Ms. Pratigya seeking appointment by promotion to the post of Senior Librarian-cum-Instructor.2. Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Librarian-cum-Instructor with the respondent no.2 vide letter dated 4.2.2004. The petitioner successfully completed her probation period and was accordingly vide letter dated 30.8.2006 of the respondent no.2 held to have successfully completed the probation period.3. On 30.9.2008, one Sh. Y.N.Gaur who was a Senior Librarian- cum-Instructor was retired. Petitioner claims that petitioner should be appointed to that post and there should not be recruitment by m...
- ‹ Prev
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- Next ›
- Last »