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.
H.S. Rawat Vs. Central Board of Irrigation and Power and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) Nos. 3934/1998, W.P.(C) 4832/1997, W.P.(C) 3463/2000, W.P.(C) 7221/2001, W.P.(C) 4411/1999 18th September, 2013 % 1. W.P.(C) 3934/1998 H.S. RAWAT ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath, Advocate with Mr. Saurabh Kumar Tuteja, Advocate. versus CENTRAL BOARD OF IRRIGATION AND POWER & ORS. .... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajeshwar Kumar Gupta, Ms. Abha Kulshresta, Advocate 2. W.P.(C) 4832/1997 & Review Petition 119/2013 JAI SINGH` Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath, Advocate with Mr. Saurabh Kumar Tuteja, Advocate. versus 3. CENTRAL BOARD OF IRRIGATION AND POWER & ORS. .... Respondents Through: MR. Ajit Puddusery, Mr. M. Shekhar, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Rajeshwar Kumar Gupta, Ms. Abha Kulshresta, Advocates for respondents 2 & 3. W.P.(C) 3463/2000 SHRI NAND LAL W.P.(C) No.3934/1998 & conn. matters ..... Petitioner Page 1 of 9 Through Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath, Advocate with Mr. Saurabh Kumar Tuteja, Advocate. versus CEN...
Amarnath Menokodath Remanan Vs. the Chairman, National Institute of Je ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.4929/2012 % 18th September , 2013 AMARNATH MENOKODATH REMANAN ..... Petitioner Through: None. versus THE CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JEWELLERY DESIGN AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms.Eshita Baruah, proxy counsel for Mr.Gaurang Kanth, Advocate CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. No one appears for the petitioner on both the first call and the second call.2. By this writ petition petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 7th April, 2011 terminating his services. Petitioner was on probation for two years in terms of the appointment letter dated 12.12.2008 and the period of two years was effective from 3.10.2008.3. Petitioner essentially contends that since the period of two years has expired, and he has continued thereafter, there is automatic confirmation of services. Petitioner also states that he was not issued any show cause notice of any def...
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Haseena Bano and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:18. h September, 2013 MAC.A. 93/2013 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Vijay Singh and Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advs. versus HASEENA BANO & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 21.11.2012 passed by the ld. Tribunal, whereby, ld. Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.6,27,712/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued the present appeal on two grounds. Firstly, ld. Tribunal has erred in granting 30% future prospects contrary to the dictum of Sarla Verma v. DTC and Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 121.3. Ld. Counsel submits that the claimants could not prove the salary of the deceased, therefore, ld. Tribunal has assessed the salary of the...
Mohinder Pal Singh Vs. Dda and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA(OS) 93/2013 and CM No.12036/2013 (stay) MOHINDER PAL SINGH Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Saket Sikri, Advocate. versus DDA AND ORS Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Padam Kant Saxena, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI ORDER (ORAL) : REVA KHETRAPAL, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18th September, 2012 whereby the suit of the Appellant was dismissed.2. The facts germane to the decision of the present appeal are as follows. The Appellant/Plaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration, possession and injunction with respect to property bearing No.1/31 Shanti Niketan, New Delhi situated on a plot of land admeasuring 2,000 sq. yds. The said property was acquired by the Appellants father Shri Kewal Singh, who died on 18.10.1991. During his lifetime, Shri Kewal Singh had invested in various immovable properties including the suit property. Sometime in 1966,...
Chanan Kaur and ors Vs. Ajit Singh (Deceased) Through Lrs
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:18. h September, 2013 + RFA3291997 CHANAN KAUR & ORS Through: ..... Appellants Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Dua, Advocate. Versus AJIT SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. S.K. Kalia and Mr. K.K. Bhalla, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. The appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 30 th September, 1997 [of the Court of Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi in RCS No.63/1992 (Old No.69/1984)]. in favour of respondent/plaintiff and against the appellants/defendants for recovery of possession of a portion of the ground floor of house No.L-59, Kalkaji, New Delhi.2. The appeal was admitted for hearing and the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff made a statement that the respondent/plaintiff will not execute the decree. Vide further interim order dated 13th July, 2006, the appellants/defendants were restrained from carrying out any constru...
Smt. Neena Bhagat and ors. Vs. Srd. Laj Sharan Kaur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order Pronounced on: September 18, 2013 + CM(M) No.620/2013 & C.M. No.9418/2013 SMT NEENA BHAGAT & ORS ..... Petitioners Through Mr.R.K.Mehta, Adv. with Mr.Elangbam P.S., Adv. versus SRD. LAJ SHARAN KAUR & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr.Satish Sahai, Adv. with Mr.Ankur Aggarwal, Adv. for R-1, 2 & 4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. By this order, I propose to decide the present petition filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 7th May, 2013 whereby the application under Section 144 CPC filed on behalf of respondents No.1, 2 & 4 for passing an order for restitution of the possession of the premises bearing No.51, R.B. Boota Singh Building, Khyber Pass, near Timarpur, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Suit Premises) was allowed and the petitioners were directed to restore and put the said respondents into the possession of the suit premises.2. Few relev...
Shri Narayan Singh Vs. Indian Oil Corporation and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1075/2013 % 18th September, 2013 SHRI NARAYAN SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Pranay Mishra, Mr.Nitin Saluja, Mr.Amrit Rathore and Mr.Shiv Chopra, Advocates. versus INDIAN OIL CORPORATION AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Rajiv Shukla and Ms.Sneha Mukherjee, Advocates for Respondents no.1 and 2. Mr.Karan Bindra, Mr.Kumar Ankur and Mr.Chayan, Advocates for R-3. 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, the petitioner, who was an employee of the respondent no.1-Indian Oil Corporation challenges the impugned order dated 12.11.2012. By the impugned order petitioners services were terminated. The impugned order reads as under: Confidential INTER OFFICE MEMO GM (HR), NR TO: Shri Narayan Singh Emp No.18936 REF : IR/1241 Chargeman (F), Tikrikalan Terminal Date:12. 11.12 Sub: Disciplinary Case against you- Final Order FROM : This has referenc...
Shri B.R. Sharma Vs. Syndicate Bank and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.1790/1998 18th September, 2013 % SHRI B.R. SHARMA Through: ..... Petitioner Petitioner in person. versus SYNDICATE BANK AND ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Jagat Arora, Advocate with Mr. Rajat Arora, Advocate. 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, the petitioner who was an employee of the respondent No.1-bank impugns the orders which have been passed by the departmental authorities; the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority; whereby petitioner has been imposed with the punishment of reduction of basic pay by three stages in the time scale of pay.2. The charge against the petitioner was that on 12.8.1993 at about 4.30 P.M. he with two other officials, namely Sh. M.K. Jain and Sh. Ajit Singh went to the DGM Secretariat of Zonal Office, Delhi and send a slip seeking appointment with the DGM. The attender of DGM took the sai...
Dabur India Ltd Vs. M/S Mughals Herbal Products and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) 388/2009 Decided on:18. h September, 2013 % DABUR INDIA LTD Through ..... Plaintiff Ms. Meenakshi Singh, Adv. versus M/S MUGHAL'S HERBAL PRODUCTS & ANR ..... Defendant Through Defendants ex-parte. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J (ORAL) 1. By the present suit the plaintiff, inter alia, seeks a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them, their agents etc. from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in rose water under the impugned trade dress, or get up, or label as may be deceptively similar to the trade dress, get up and label of the plaintiffs DABUR GULABARI rose water so as to lead to confusion or deception amounting to passing off the goods/ business of the defendants for that of the plaintiff; decree of mandatory injunction to hand over to the plaintiff all goods, packagings, wrappers, cartons etc. bearing the impugned trade dress, to ...
Union of India Vs. Deepak Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:18. h September, 2013 + WP(C) No.5547 OF 2012 & CM 11331/2012 UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Appellant Mr.R.V.Sinha with Mr.A.S. Singh, Advocates. versus DEEPAK SHARMA Through: ..... Respondent Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI % 1. MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI (Oral) The petitioner being aggrieved by an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O. A. 4162 of 2010 dated 5th March, 2012, (impugned order) has preferred this petition. The impugned order directs the petitioner to:...consider the applicants letter dated 31.08.2007 requesting for voluntary retirement, as per the provisions of Rule 48-A within a period of nine weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It goes without saying that subsequent to the issue of acceptance of his voluntary retirement, the applicant would be entitled to all the retrial (sic: retiral) benefits incl...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »