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.
Bikal Bhanot @ Vicky Vs. State(Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:25. h July, 2013 Pronounced on:30. h August, 2013 + Crl. A.1439/2012 BIKAL BHANOT @ VICKY ..... Appellant Through: Mr. K.Singhal, Advocate Versus STATE(NCT OF DELHI) Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.09.2012 and order on sentence dated 28.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge(ASJ) in Sessions Case No.58/2008 FIR No.153/2008 P.S. Janak Puri whereby Appellant Bikal Bhanot was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 and Section 397 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life and to pay a fine of `20,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for three years for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and RI for ten years and a fine of `10,000/- and in default to undergo SI for two years for the...
Feroze Enterprises Vs. Mohd. Iqbal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
.* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: August 30, 2013 + RC. Rev. No.26/2013 FEROZE ENTERPRISES Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Mohammad Abid, Adv. with Mr.Shariq Mohammad, Adv. versus MOHD. IQBAL & ANR Through + ..... Respondents Mr.Amit Gupta, Adv. with Ms.Sumati Jumrani, Adv. RC. Rev. No.27/2013 FEROZE AHMED Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Mohammad Abid, Adv. with Mr.Shariq Mohammad, Adv. versus MOHD. IQBAL & ANR Through ..... Respondents Mr.Amit Gupta, Adv. with Ms.Sumati Jumrani, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The abovementioned two petitions are filed by the petitioners under section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the eviction orders dated 12th September, 2012 passed by the learned Addl. Rent Controller (Central), Delhi, dismissing the leave to defend applications of the petitioners. As the facts in both the matters are common, both the petitions are decided by the common order.2. The respondents filed evic...
Sumeet Kaur Vs. Directorate of Education and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 3343/2012 30th August , 2013 % SUMEET KAUR Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Hanu Bhaskar, Advocate. versus DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. J.K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Ashok Kashyap, Advocate for respondent No.2. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. No.12145/2013 Application is allowed and the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 is taken on record. C.M. stands disposed of. + W.P.(C) No.3343/2012 1. This writ petition impugns the appointment of respondent No.3 as TGT (English) in respondent No.2-school. On a query put to counsel for the petitioner, it is admitted that respondent No.3 was appointed as TGT in the respondent No.2-school way back in the year 1999 and regularized by the respondent No.1/Directorate of Education in the year 2001. Therefore, t...
M. Shankar Rao and ors. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 5452/2013 30th August , 2013 % M. SHANKAR RAO AND ORS. Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Gautam Panjwani, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Through: ..... Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. No.12189/2013 (exemption) Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of + W.P.(C) No.5452/2013 and C.M. No.12188/2013 (stay) 1. All the petitioners, who are 31 in number, are serving the respondent No.2 at Hyderabad office. Benefits which the petitioners claim of extension of age of retirement from 58 to 60 years will be by means of enforcement of the relevant circulars or challenging the circulars in its implementation with respect to petitioners services at Hyderabad. Admittedly, at Hyderabad the respondent No.2 has a branch office where the petitioners serve. Merely because Union of India is s...
Kanti Lal Sadh and Others Vs. Indian Overseas Bank
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
$~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:30. 08.2013 + W.P.(C) 5400/2013 KANTI LAL SADH AND OTHERS ..... Petitioners Through : Mr. Mukesh Malhotra and Mr.Vikas Minhas, Advocates. versus INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Karan Khanna, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % C.M. No. 12074/2013 (for exemption from filing annexures) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C), 5400/2013 & C.M. No. 12073/2013 (for stay) 1. Notice.2. Mr. Karan Khanna, learned counsel for respondent accepts notice.3. The petition can be heard and disposed off finally.4. The petitioners property was the subject matter of notice and W.P.(C) 5400/2013 Page 1 proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), pursuant to which notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act was i...
Army Public School and anr. Vs. Sh. Anusuya Prasad and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
$~22,23,24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1439/2013, W.P.(C) 2176/2013, W.P.(C) 2535/2013 30th August, 2013 % 1. W.P.(C) No.1439/2013 ARMY PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Asha Jain Madan, Advocate. versus NARENDRA SINGH NAIN AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. M. A. Niyazi, Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocates for respondent No.1. Mr. Kushal Yadav, Advocate for Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate & Ms. Jahnavi Upadhyay, Advocate for Mr. Dhamesh Relan, Advocate for respondent No.2/Directorsyr of Education.2. W.P.(C) No.2176 /2013 ARMY PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Asha Jain Madan, Advocate. versus AYODHYA PRASAD SEMWAL AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. M. A. Niyazi, Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocates for respondent No.1. Mr. Kushal Yadav, Advocate for Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for respondent No.2/Director of Education.3. W.P.(C) No.2535/2013 ARMY PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Asha Jain Madan, Advocate. versus SH. ANUSU...
Army Public School and anr. Vs. Ayodhya Prasad Semwal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
$~22,23,24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1439/2013, W.P.(C) 2176/2013, W.P.(C) 2535/2013 30th August, 2013 % 1. W.P.(C) No.1439/2013 ARMY PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Asha Jain Madan, Advocate. versus NARENDRA SINGH NAIN AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. M. A. Niyazi, Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocates for respondent No.1. Mr. Kushal Yadav, Advocate for Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate & Ms. Jahnavi Upadhyay, Advocate for Mr. Dhamesh Relan, Advocate for respondent No.2/Directorsyr of Education.2. W.P.(C) No.2176 /2013 ARMY PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Asha Jain Madan, Advocate. versus AYODHYA PRASAD SEMWAL AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. M. A. Niyazi, Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocates for respondent No.1. Mr. Kushal Yadav, Advocate for Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for respondent No.2/Director of Education.3. W.P.(C) No.2535/2013 ARMY PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Asha Jain Madan, Advocate. versus SH. ANUSU...
Army Public School and anr. Vs. Narendra Singh NaIn and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
$~22,23,24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1439/2013, W.P.(C) 2176/2013, W.P.(C) 2535/2013 30th August, 2013 % 1. W.P.(C) No.1439/2013 ARMY PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Asha Jain Madan, Advocate. versus NARENDRA SINGH NAIN AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. M. A. Niyazi, Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocates for respondent No.1. Mr. Kushal Yadav, Advocate for Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate & Ms. Jahnavi Upadhyay, Advocate for Mr. Dhamesh Relan, Advocate for respondent No.2/Directorsyr of Education.2. W.P.(C) No.2176 /2013 ARMY PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Asha Jain Madan, Advocate. versus AYODHYA PRASAD SEMWAL AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. M. A. Niyazi, Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocates for respondent No.1. Mr. Kushal Yadav, Advocate for Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for respondent No.2/Director of Education.3. W.P.(C) No.2535/2013 ARMY PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Asha Jain Madan, Advocate. versus SH. ANUSU...
D.T.C. Vs. Po, Labour Court No.1 and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
$~39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5556/1999 Decided on 30th August, 2013 ..... Petitioner D.T.C. Through: Ms. Arati Mahajan Shredha, Adv. versus PO, LABOUR COURT NO.1 & ORS Through: ..... Respondents Mohd. Rashid, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK A.K. PATHAK, J.(ORAL) 1. Workman has died during the pendency of writ petition and is represented through his legal representatives.2. Workman raised an industrial dispute with the Labour Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi which was referred to Labour Court-I, Tis Hazari, Delhi for adjudication under Section 10 (I) (C) & 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the Act) by Secretary (Labour), Delhi Administration, Delhi on 8th August, 1990 in the following terms:- Whether the termination of services of Sh. Rajender Singh is illegal and/unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect? 3. Workman filed statement of cla...
Manmohan Singh and anr Vs. Ge Money Financial Services Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO 339/2013 Decided on 30th August, 2013 ..... Appellants MANMOHAN SINGH & ANR Through: Mr.Basant Kumar Singh, Advocate. versus GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 23.03.2013 passed by the learned ADJ vide which the objections of the appellants under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the award passed by the arbitrator, were partly allowed.2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants had not received the notice about the proceedings having been initiated before the arbitrator and consequently an ex parte award was passed against him. It has been contended by him that since principles of natural justice were not followed, therefore, the arbitration award passed again him is void ab initio.3. In order to support his contention, the learned counsel for the appellan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »