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.
Shri H.K. Chaudhary Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.3468 /1997 7th August, 2013 % SHRI H.K. CHAUDHARY Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. P.R. Chopra, Advocate. versus STATE BANK OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. A.K. Sangal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition, petitioner impugns the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority whereby petitioner has been visited with the punishment of dismissal from service. I may note that the petitioner never appeared in the enquiry proceedings in spite of notice, did not lead his evidence, did not depose in his favour and hence did not stand the test of cross-examination. The department on the other hand led evidence and proved the charges against the petitioner.2. The following Article of Charges were issued against the petitioner:- STAFF : CLERICAL It has been decided to initiate disciplinary action against you on account of the following ...
Mahender Manchanda and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) No. 1172/2012 Date of Decision:07. h August, 2013 MAHENDER MANCHANDA & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate with petitioners in person. versus STATE & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State with SI Manish Kumar PS Karol Bagh. Injured in person. CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.84/2002 U/s 308/506/34 IPC, PS Karol Bagh, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom. The aforesaid FIR was registered on the statement of Constable Anand, No. 1566/C, Police Station, Karol Bagh, Delhi wherein, he stated that on 22 nd May, 2012, he was posted along with Constable Vikram at Jessa Ram Hospital Police Picket from 8:00 p.m. onwards till 8:00 a.m. on 23rd May, 2012. On 23rd May...
Raj Rani Vs. Subodh Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on: August 07, 2013 + C.R.P. No.4/2013 & C.M. No.671/2013 RAJ RANI Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Manuj Aggarwal, Adv. versus SUBODH KUMAR Through ..... Respondent Mr.Ravish Kr.Goyal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner assails the order dated 24 th November, 2012 whereby the petitioners application under Order XIV, Rule 2 and Order VII, Rule 11 CPC for treating the issue of maintainability of suit as preliminary issue and for rejection of the plaint, was dismissed, mainly, on the reason that the recovery of money sought by the respondent/plaintiff is not barred by any of the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short, called the DRC Act). The question of quantum of rent is a matter of trial. The suit is not barred by the provisions of Section 6A & 50 of the DRC Act and the respondent is well within his right to seek the prayer for recovery of money being arrears...
State Nct of Delhi Vs. Manoj @sanoj @bhondo
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2013
$~ 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 264/2013 & CRL.M.A.No.8145/2013 % Judgment dated 07.08.2013 STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Advocate versus MANOJ @SANOJ @BHONDO Through: ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL ORDER 07 08.2013 % G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL). CRL.M.A. No.8145/2013 1. This is an application for condonation of 355 days delay in filing the present leave to appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed. Delay in filing leave to appeal is condoned.2. Application stands disposed of. CRL.L.P. No.264/2013 3. By the present petition, State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 20.01.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The respondent was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302/376/377 IPC and an FIR was registered for the above sections on the allegation of rape and murder of one 5 year old girl. The prosecu...
Smt. Bimla Kaushik Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Through Its Chai ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2013
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) This Original Application has been filed by Smt. Bimla Kaushik who is the widow and legal heir of Sh. Ram Kumar Kaushik. The applicant has sought the following relief:- (i) That the Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 3.5.2012 (A/1), declaring to the effect that the same is illegal, arbitrary and against the law of the land and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to consider and grant promotion to the husband of the applicant as Junior Telephone Operator (JTO) w.e.f 1.10.2002 i.e. from the date of promotion of junior persons with all the consequential benefits including the arrears of difference of pay and allowances and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to revise the pensionary benefits, with all consequential benefits including the arrears with interest. (ii) Any other relief which this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumsta...
Sh. Sukhbir Singh and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2013
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) The applicants, who are 4 in number, are aggrieved by their non-selection for the post of Junior Reception Officer (JRO). They have sought the following relief:- (i) That this Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to call for all relevant records for promotion to the post of Junior Reception Officer (JRO) before this Honble Tribunal. (ii) That this Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to allow this original application and set aside the impugned notification dated 21.5.2012 issued by respondent no.3 for conducted the selection for the post of Junior Reception Officer (JRO). (iii) That this Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to allow this Original Application and direct the respondents to Review the Selection procedure for the post of Junior Reception Officer (JRO) on the basis of Seniority-cum-Suitability according to the Recruitment Rules dated 16.2.2012 issued by respondents. (iv) That any other or further relief w...
Sh. Rakesh Beniwal Vs. the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Nct of Delhi Delh ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2013
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) MA-1227/2012 filed for joining together in one application is allowed. 2. The applicants have sought the following relief:- (a) To declare the action of respondents in not fixing the seniority of applicants inspite of order of this Honble Tribunal and promoting their juniors as DASS Grade-I as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. (b) To direct the respondents to fix the seniority and pay of the applicants as Grade-II (DASS) at par with their batchmates and juniors appearing at SI No. 6691, 6556, 6532, 6508 and 6610 respectively of the Seniority list of DASS Grade-II and consider them for promotion to Grade-I DASS from February, 2011 with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay. allow the OA with cost. To pass such other and further orders which their lordships of this Honble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case. 3. During the pendency of the O.A. the seniority of the applicants was fixed to their sa...
Shri Kewal Dua Vs. Shri T.C. Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :21. t MAY, 2013 DECIDED ON :6. h AUGUST, 2013 + CRL.M.C. 850/2013 & CRL.M.A. 2744/2013 SHRI KEWAL DUA Through : ....Petitioner Mr.Ashu Singh, Advocate. versus SHRI T.C. SHARMA Through : .Respondent Mr.Umesh Gupta, Advocate with respondent in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. The petitioner challenges order dated 03.10.2011 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate by which he was not given reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the complainant. The said order was challenged in revision which was dismissed by an order dated 19.01.2013. Counsel urged that the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity of being heard and when the case was taken up at 04.15 P.M., the complainant could not be cross-examined due to absence of the counsel. The petition is contested by the respondent.2. I have heard the submissions of the parties and have examined the record. Complaint case under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments A...
Cit Vs. Pearl Intercontinental
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2013
$~28. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1545/2010 Date of decision:6. h August, 2013 CIT ..... Appellant Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus PEARL INTERCONTINENTAL ..... Respondent Through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL): This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) emanates from order dated 13 th August, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal, for short) in the case of Pearl Intercontinental Limited and relates to Assessment Year 1994-95.2. By order dated 16th August, 2011, the following two questions of law were framed:1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law deleting the addition of Rs.82,73,328/- made by the Assessing Officer by treating the exports to M/s. Taj AL Khaleej General Trading Company, Dubai as bogus and consequentially treating the income to the assessable as income from o...
M/S Tansimi Educational Society Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2013
24 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5000/2013 M/S TANSIMI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Priti Issar, President of Petitioner with Mr. Jagdeep Kumar Sharma, Advocate versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Through: ..... Respondent None Date of Decision:06. h August, 2013. % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J (Oral): CM Appls. 11289/2013 (exemption) in W.P.(C) 5000/2013 Keeping in view the averments in the application, the same is allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 5000/2013 & CM Appl.11290/2013 1. Present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the respondent-banks valuation of petitioners secured/mortgaged asset, namely, Site No. 3111, DLF City Phase III, Gurgaon, Haryana.2. Ms. Priti Issar, President of petitioner society, who appears in person, states that though she does not dispute the right of the respondent-bank to auction the petitioners property, she disputes ...
- ‹ Prev
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- Next ›
- Last »