Delhi Court September 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.
Deepak Grewal Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2013
$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: September 24, 2013 + W.P.(C) 6083/2013 DEEPAK GREWAL Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Apurb Lal, Advocate with Mr.Dalip Singh, Advocate versus UOI & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Advocate with Mr.Vardhman Kaushik and Mr.Neeraj Khapra, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) CM No.13378/2013 Allowed subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 6083/2013 1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record we find no infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal that the facts of the instant case evidence contrivance by the petitioner to somehow or the other not report for duty so that he could prepare for the Central Civil Services Examination.2. Working as a Senior Engineer (Electrical) with the Indian Railways, the petitioner wanted long leave to prepare for the Central Civil Services Examination,...
P.S.Dhillon and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: September 24, 2013 + W.P.(C) 3755/2002 P.S.DHILLON & ORS. ..... Petitioners Represented by: Dr.Surat Singh, Advocate with Mr.Brajesh Kumar Singh and Mr.Sumit Jidani, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the judgment dated April 30, 2001, whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed four Original Application Nos.464/2000, 871/2000, 2667/2000 and 923/2000 by a common order and to the order dated April 29, 2002 in Review Application No.243/2001 in Original Application No.2667/2000, Review Application No.247/2001 in Original Application No.871/2000 and Review Application No.225/2001 in Original Application No.464/2000.2. Out of the four Original Applications, three Original Applications were filed by the petitioners herein and the details ...
Dr. D.K. Modi Vs. Y.K. Modi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS (OS) No.991 of 2009 & IA Nos. 7153 of 2009 (u/O 39 R 1 & 2 CPC), 9774 of 2009 (fled by D-3 u/O 39 R 4 CPC), 10024 of 2009 (u/S 151 CPC), 10123 of 2009 (u/O 39 R 4 CPC), 10542 of 2009 (u/O 39 R 4 CPC), 10122, 11660, 11663, 11714 and 14274 of 2009 (u/O 7 R 11 CPC), 7047 of 2013 (u/O 11 R 14 CPC) Reserved on: August 27, 2013 Decision on: September 24, 2013 DR. D.K. MODI Through: ..... Plaintiff Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Senior Advocate, Mr. U.K. Chaudhary, Senior Advocate with Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, Ms. Jayashree Shukla, Mr. Nilesh Kumar and Ms. Sadhvi Shahi, Advocates. versus Y.K. MODI AND ORS Through: CS(OS) No.991 of 2009 ..... Defendants Mr. Pravin Bahadur, Mr. Kishan Rawat & Mr. Rajan Narain, Advocates for D-3 & 4. Mr. Rajive Sawhney, Senior Advocate with Mr. Salil Seth & Mr. Debarshi Dutta, Advocates for D-5. Ms. Archana Lakhotia, Advocate for D-6. Mr. Ravikesh K. Sinha & Mr. Rakesh K. Sinha, Advocates for D-7. Mr. Vijoy Gupta and Mr. Chetan Swarup, A...
Rajni Agarwal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 706/2013 RAJNI AGARWAL Through ..... Appellant Dr. Sukhdev Sharma, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through ..... Respondents Mr. Himanshu Bajaj, CGSC for R-1. Date of Decision:24. h September, 2013 % CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) CM Appl. 15044/2013 (exemption) in LPA 706/2013 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. LPA 706/2013 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 08th July, 2013 whereby the appellants writ petition being WP(C) No.1626/2012 seeking inter-discipline transfer from Accessory Designing Department to Textile Designing Department, has been dismissed. The relevant portion of the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge is reproduced hereinbelow:- 23............It is the petitioner who made an application seeking inter-discipline transfer. Petitioner was made aware that inter-discipline transfer is not ...
Dr. Shri Kant Tripathi and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2013
$~R40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5732/1998 % 24.09.2013 DR. SHRI KANT TRIPATHI & ORS. Through None ..... Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition, petitioners seek implementation of the Fifth Pay Commission recommendations w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and not w.e.f 1.4.1998 as has been granted.2. On the aspect what should be the salary or the pay-scale of an employee of an Autonomous Organization, the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Workman, Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2007) 1 SCC 408 has held that Courts should not interfere with respect to the administrative decisions as to what should be or should not be the salary of an employee. In the present case, fixing of a salary with retrospective effect, as prayed for by the petitioner, is an issue left with the administrative discre...
Bharat Chaudhary Vs. Deepa Gupta and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:24. h September, 2013. + RFA 199/2012 BHARAT CHAUDHARY Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Mohd. Shariq, Adv. for Mr. Shahid Ali, Adv. Versus DEEPA GUPTA & ANR Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Rashid Hashmi, Adv. AND + RFA 248/2012 BHARAT CHAUDHARY Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Rahul Jain, Adv. Versus SHARAD GUPTA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rashid Hashmi, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. The appellant in both the appeals is the same. The respondent/s in the two appeals are closely related to each other.2. Both appeals challenge the money decree in the suits instituted by the respective respondent(s) against the appellant. While RFA No.199/2012 impugns the judgment and decree dated 6th January, 2012 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ) (Central) 12, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Case No.400/2009 (Unique Case ID No.02401C5966552004), of recovery of Rs.6,91,200/- with simple interes...
Bharat Chaudhary Vs. Sharad Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:24. h September, 2013. + RFA 199/2012 BHARAT CHAUDHARY Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Mohd. Shariq, Adv. for Mr. Shahid Ali, Adv. Versus DEEPA GUPTA & ANR Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Rashid Hashmi, Adv. AND + RFA 248/2012 BHARAT CHAUDHARY Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Rahul Jain, Adv. Versus SHARAD GUPTA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rashid Hashmi, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. The appellant in both the appeals is the same. The respondent/s in the two appeals are closely related to each other.2. Both appeals challenge the money decree in the suits instituted by the respective respondent(s) against the appellant. While RFA No.199/2012 impugns the judgment and decree dated 6th January, 2012 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ) (Central) 12, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Case No.400/2009 (Unique Case ID No.02401C5966552004), of recovery of Rs.6,91,200/- with simple interes...
Jai Kanwar Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2013
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6054/2013 JAI KANWAR Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. C. Mohan Rao, Adv. with Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. & Mr. Trivendra Chauhan, Adv. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL ORDER 24.09.2013 % 1. By virtue of this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks allotment of 400 sq. yards of a residential plot in a developed sector of Rohini, Delhi on the cost equivalent to the cost of acquisition of the plot plus development charges. The case of the Petitioner is that the land measuring 44 Bighas and 19 Biswas forming part of Khasra No.21/2, 22/2, 1/2, 11, 20, 2, 9, 12, 16/1, 17/2, 18/2, 7, 5/1, 5/1/2, village Pooth Kalan was acquired vide Notification dated 11.12.1981. The Petitioner had one-third share in this land and he was paid a compensation of `2,96,696/- on 24.12.1985.2. It is averred that at the time o...
K Nathan Vs. Prafulla Kumar Barik
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:24. 09.2013 FAO(OS) 187/2012 & CM No.7979/2012 K NATHAN ..... Appellant Versus PRAFULLA KUMAR BARIK ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr K.K. Rohtagi For the Respondent : Mr T.K. Ganju, Senior Advocate with Mr Rono Mohanty CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 16.03.2012 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in I.A No.1300/2010. This application was filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC by the plaintiff / respondent for removal of the iron staircase, which, according to the respondent, was a security hazard. The respondent / plaintiff also prayed that the appellant / defendant be restrained from encroaching in any manner and from occupying or using the roof/ terrace on the first floor above the ground floor of the respondents / defendants flat. ...
Association for Voluntary Action Vs. the Child Trust and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: Pronounced on:04. 09.2013 24.09.2013 + IA No.2258/2009 in CS(OS)1025/2008 ASSOCIATION FOR VOLUNTARY ACTION......Plaintiff Through Mr.H.S.Phoolka, Sr. Adv. with Ms.Anupama Gupta, Mr.Ashok Kashyap, Mr.Bhuwan and Mr.Gursimranjit Singh, Advs. Versus THE CHILD TRUST & ANOTHER ......Defendants Through Mr.R.K.Saxena, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.IA No.2258/2009 (Order 12 Rule 6 CPC) 1. This is an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree on admissions. The suit is filed seeking a relief of mandatory injunction against the defendants for vacating the suit premises bearing Khasra No.353 measuring 2 bighas and 5 biswas in Village Garhi Khusro near Ibrahimpur, Delhi and a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant permanently restraining them from causing disturbance, hindrance or nuisance in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the suit property.2. It is the c...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »