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.
Mrs. S.V. Sharma Vs. Director of Education and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.2338/2002 8th August, 2013 % MRS. S.V. SHARMA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. H. K. Chaturvedi, Advocate. versus DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Vaibhav Misra, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Saket Sikri, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-Mrs. S.V. Sharma impugning the order of the Delhi School Tribunal (DST) dated 28.8.2001. By the impugned order, the DST dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner and upheld the enquiry report and the order of the Disciplinary Authority imposing the penalty of removal from services upon the petitioner.2. Before me two main grounds are urged for impugning the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the DST. The first ground is that one Mrs. M. Varshney was a member of the Disciplinary Committee, who imposed t...
Saroop Singh and ors. Vs. M/S. Orex Auto Infrastructure Service Ltd. a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + F.A.O. No.11/2013 Decided on :08. 08.2013 SAROOP SINGH & ORS. Through: Appellants Mr.Subrat Deb, Advocate. Versus M/s. OREX AUTO INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICE LTD. & ANR. Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) 1. This is an appeal filed under Section 37 (1) (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the said Act for short) against the order dated 30.08.2012 passed by the learned ADJ dismissing the objections filed by the appellants.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also gone through the record.3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that there was no default for three continuous months and consequently the impugned order could not have been passed. Before dealing with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, it would be worthwhile to mention the brief facts of the case.4. The appellant No.1 had taken two loans one for a sum of Rs.13,40,000/- for pur...
Overseas Trading Corporation Vs. Handlooms and Handicrafts Export Corp ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON 08th August, 2013 + RFA(OS) 105/2012 OVERSEAS TRADING CORPORATION ..... Appellant Through : versus Mr. Vibhor Garg, Adv. HANDLOOMS & HANDICRAFTS EXPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Vivek Singh and Ms.Madhu Sharan, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI % MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. The appellant is an unsuccessful plaintiff. It appealed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 9 th July, 2012 by which its suit had been dismissed. Simultaneously, the sole defendants/respondents (hereafter referred to as HHEC) suit preferred against M/s. Unisilk Limited, Hong Kong (hereafter referred to as the exporter) was decreed in full with interest awarded at 18% per annum till date of execution. Rfaos105.12 Pag2. The brief facts are that the plaintiff entered into an Agreement on 27th October, 1998 with HHEC. In terms of their arra...
Ramina Kumar Minocha Vs. Arun Dewanwala and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + F.A.O. No.245/2009 Decided on :08. 08.2013 RAMINA KUMAR MINOCHA Appellant Through: Ms.Anita Sahani, Advocate. Versus ARUN DEWANWALA & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr.Rama Shankar, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 04.04.2009 passed by the learned ADJ in Suit No.116 of 2009 titled Arun Dewanwala & Ors. Vs. Mrs.Ramina Kumar Minocha & Anr., by virtue of which the prayers of the respondents/plaintiffs under the application Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC have been granted. In addition to this, the appellant/defendant has been restrained from installing the iron grills and gates leading to the common terrace area. It may be pertinent to mention that the prayer in the application of the respondents/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was that the appellant/defendant, her legal heirs, servants, associates, agents and family members be restrained from encroaching upon the common port...
Pardeep Dangi Vs. Chairman/Cmd Delhi Transport Corporation Govt. of Nc ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J): In pursuance of a requisition from the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), the Delhi State Services Selection Board (DSSSB) issued advertisement in November, 2009 inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Drivers in DTC. The applicant was selected in the said selection process, having passed the written examination as well as driving skill test and accordingly DSSSB has sent his dossiers/files along with others to the respondents-DTC for further scrutiny of their eligibility conditions with reference to their educational qualifications, age, experience, etc. before giving appointments to such candidates vide letter dated 06.12.2010. 2. For completion of the pre-recruitment formalities the applicant was medically examined by the DTC Medical Board on 29.12.2010 (Annexure A6) wherein he was declared `Unfit for the post of Driver due to Amputation of distal phalynx of left middle finger, as per the prescribed medical standard laid down for the post. 3. ...
Amit Dabas Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Chief Secretary and Other ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J): This OA has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: to direct the respondents to extend the benefits of Judgment dated 15.09.2008 passed in various Original Applications (Annexure - A2) and examine the case of the applicant if he is found similarly placed persons like Judgment dated 15.9.2008 (Annexure - A2) he may be offered the post of TGT Hindi (Male) under OBC Category extending the benefits of judgment dated 5.9.2008 in accordance with law. To direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the applicant for the aforesaid post in terms of judgment dated 15.9.2008 and he may be given consequential benefits accordingly. To allow the original application with all consequential benefits. To pass any other and further order which this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents. 2. The applicant belongs to OBC category and passed B.A. Degree w...
Manoj Kumar Vs. Union of India Through Sectretary/Estab.(Rrb), Ministr ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
G. George Paracken: The Applicants grievance is that just because he did not indicate the date of the Postal Order in his Application Form, his candidature for the post of Junior Engineer-II (SandT) DRG in East Central Railway has been rejected though he had obtained 94.837% marks in Limited Competitive Examination held for the said post. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant belongs to OBC category. Pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Railway Recruitment Board, Patna vide Notification No.CEN 05/2010, he applied for the post of Junior Engineer-II (SandT) DRG in East Central Railway. Thereafter, the said Recruitment Board issued him the Admit Card bearing Roll No.26105864000022 and the written examination was held on 19.10.2010. Since he was not getting any response to his oral/written queries about the result of the examination, he approached the respondents under Right to Information Act, 2005. Finally, vide Annexure A-1 letter dated 07.11.2012, he was informed...
State Vs. Sandeep Sharma and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 134/2013 Decided on 08.08.2013 IN THE MATTER OF : STATE ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, ASC for State versus SANDEEP SHARMA & ORS. Through: None. ..... Respondent CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/State under Section 378 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for grant of leave to file an appeal against the acquittal order 6.3.2012 passed by the learned ASJ, Saket Court, in SC No.10/2006/2010, arising out of case FIR No.775/2004 (Ex.PW-3/A) lodged under Sections 367/377/506/323/34 IPC at PS Kalkaji, Delhi.2. The brief facts of the case as set up by the prosecution and relevant for deciding the present petition are that on 28.8.2004, at about 8.00 AM, when the complainant, Imran Khan was travelling in a public bus along with his friend Amjad Khan, four persons, namely, Mohd. Yunus @ Chhotu Bihari(accused No.3), Sandeep Sharma @ Tittoo (accused No.1...
Kumari Anadi Shakya and anr Vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha Univers ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on Judgment pronounced on :29. 07.2013 :07. 08.2013 W.P.(C) 4748/2013 ANKIT ROY Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Lalit Kumar and Mr Deepak Vohra, Advs. versus GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Mukul Talwar and Mr S. Mohapatra, Advs. % + Judgment reserved on Judgment pronounced on :31. 07.2013 :07. 08.2013 W.P.(C) 4823/2013 VINEET @ VINEET KUMAR (MINOR) THROUGH FATHER TEJA RAM ..... Petitioner Through: Mr R.K. Saini and Mr Vikram Saini, Advs. versus GGSIP UNIVERSITY & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Mukul Talwar, Adv for R-1 Judgment reserved on Judgment pronounced on + :05. 08.2013 :07. 08.2013 W.P.(C) 4660/2013 NIKHIL BANGA AND OTHERS ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Subha Rao and Mr K.L.D.S. Vinober, Advs. versus GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER ..... Respondent Through: Mr Mukul Talwar, Adv for GGSIP University Ms. Zubeda Begum, Standing Counsel with Ms. Sana...
Jaswant Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2013
#22 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3063/2013 & CM APPL. 5800/2013 JASWANT SINGH ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Manuj Aggarwal, Advocate versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR Through ..... Respondents Mr. Sushil Dutt Salwan, Advocate Date of Decision:07. h August, 2013. % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J (Oral):1. Present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the respondent-DDAs letter dated 3rd December, 2002. The petitioner has also sought a direction to respondent-DDA to transfer Plot No. 97, Block F, Pocket 4, Sector 16 in Rohini Residential Scheme in the name of petitioners son Mr. Surjeet Singh.2. The facts of the present case are that as the petitioner had been allotted Flat No.45 in Labour CGHS Ltd., Pitampura, New Delhi and Plot No. 97, Block F, Pocket 4, Sector 16 in Rohini Residential Scheme, respondent-DDA on 28th February, 2000 issued a Show Cause Notice to the petiti...
- ‹ Prev
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- Next ›
- Last »