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.
State Vs. Lalita
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:16. h September, 2013 + CRL.L.P. 501/2013 STATE Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Saleem Ahmed, ASC for the State. versus LALITA ..... Respondent Through: Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL J.(ORAL) CRL.M.A. 13958/2013 (delay) 1. This application has been filed by the State seeking condonation of 94 days delay in filing the present petition for leave to appeal.2. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, present application is allowed. Delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal is condoned.3. Application stands disposed of. CRL.L.P. 501/2013 4. By this petition under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), the State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 11.03.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), (North-West) Rohini, Delhi in Sessions Case No.12/2009 whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charge...
Jutta Oberoi Vs. NavIn Oberoi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on: September 16, 2013 + CM(M) No.1124/2012 JUTTA OBEROI Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Jagjit Singh, Adv. with Jutta Oberoi in prson. versus NAVIN OBEROI Through ..... Respondent Respondent in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(ORAL) 1. In the present matter, both the parties had requested for a grant of dissolution of marriage under Section 28(2) of The Special Marriage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and vide judgment and decree dated 7th October, 2004 this Court ordered for the same.2. The judgment recorded the statements of both the parties to the extent of permanent alimony, stridhan and other mutual settlements. However the same was not recorded in the decree.3. Thereafter the both the petitioners filed a joint application under Sections 151, 152 and 153 read with Section 37 of Act for correction of dissolution of marriage decree dated 7th October, 2004 so as to include the ...
Union of India and ors. Vs. Radharanjan Pattanaik and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on: September 16, 2013 LPA 677/2013 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Mr. Sanjiv K. Saxena and Mr. Ramneek Mishra, Advocates for appellants. + versus RADHARANJAN PATTANAIK & ORS. Through: LPA 678/2013 ..... Respondent UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Mr. Sanjiv K. Saxena and Mr. Ramneek Mishra, Advocates for appellants. versus CHABI RANI ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI % MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI 1 In these appeals, the appellant seeks the setting aside of the common order of the Learned Single Judge passed on 13 th May, 2013 (impugned order) in WP(C)/8032/2009 and WP(C)/8090/2009. The respondent employees in these appeals (the successful Writ Petitioners), had sought entitlement to pension as was available to LPA No.677/2013 Page | 1 other employees of the Visva-Bharati University (respondent Univer...
Manoj Kumar Roy Vs. Department of Personnel and Training, Goi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on: September 16, 2013 + WP(C) No.5807/2013 MANOJ KUMAR ROY Through: Advocate. Mr. ..... Appellant Aditya Ranjan, versus DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING, GOI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Arati Mahajan, Adv. for R-1 & R-3/Union of India. Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI % MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI(Oral) 1. Being aggrieved by an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) dated 6th February, 2013 (impugned order), in O. A. No.214 of 2012 the petitioner has impugned it in this petition. The Tribunal declined the relief he sought, i.e. of directions being issued to the respondent Government of India, to allocate / appoint him in the Indian Revenue Service (Customs and Central Excise, Group A) (IRS) in the OBC WP(C) No.5807/2013 Page 1 category of physically disabled hearing impaired candidate (PDHI).2. The petitioners case is that the notifi...
Union of India and anr Vs. Mohd. Salim Beg
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:16. h September, 2013 + WP(C) No.4161 OF2012UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Through: ..... Appellants Mr.R.V.Sinha with Mr.A.S. Singh, Advocates. versus MOHD. SALIM BEG Through: ..... Respondent Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI % MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (Oral) 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 9th November, 2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby the respondents application questioning the penalty imposed upon him, was allowed.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 17th August, 2006, the respondent was issued with the charge memo that he had not followed the prescribed instructions regarding making security arrangement through DGR sponsored agency and failed to point out the irregularities at the time of the approval by the Tender Opening Committee (TOC). The charge sheet alleged that a tender had been invited in Mar...
Union of India and ors Vs. Chabi Rani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on: September 16, 2013 LPA6772013 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Mr. Sanjiv K. Saxena and Mr. Ramneek Mishra, Advocates for appellants. + versus RADHARANJAN PATTANAIK & ORS. Through: LPA6782013 ..... Respondent UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Mr. Sanjiv K. Saxena and Mr. Ramneek Mishra, Advocates for appellants. versus CHABI RANI ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI % MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI1 In these appeals, the appellant seeks the setting aside of the common order of the Learned Single Judge passed on 13 th May, 2013 (impugned order) in WP(C)/8032/2009 and WP(C)/8090/2009. The respondent employees in these appeals (the successful Writ Petitioners), had sought entitlement to pension as was available to LPA No.677/2013 Page | 1 other employees of the Visva-Bharati University (respondent University)...
Sanjay Dubey Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2013
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + R.S.A. No.192 of 2012 and C.M. Nos.20240/2012, 21108/2012, 3359/2013 Decided on :16. h September, 2013 SANJAY DUBEY Through: Appellant Mr. Kamran Malik, Advocate. Versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant under Section 100 CPC against the order dated 21.11.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge dismissing the appeal of the appellant being R.C.A. No.5/2012.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the record. The plaintiff/appellant herein had filed a Civil Suit No.141/2007 for permanent injunction against the respondent/DDA claiming himself to be the owner and in possession of property/land measuring 1000 square yards out of Khasra No.143 situated in the abadi of village Mandawali-Fazalpur, Delhi-110092. It was stated in the plaint that the af...
Dr. Reddy???s Laboratory Ltd. Vs. Reddy Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2013
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.S. (OS) No. 2194/2003 Date of Decision:13. .09.2013 DR. REDDYS LABORATORY LTD. Through: ....Plaintiff Mr. N.K Kaul, Sr. Adv with Mr Neel Mason, Ms Vrinda Sharma, Ms Sabia Veqar and Ms Vasudha, Advs Versus REDDY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. Through: ...Defendant Mr. Shanti Bhushan, Sr. Adv, with Mr. V.S Reddy, Mr. Kartik Seth, and Mr. S. Prakash Kashyap, Advs CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J.1. The plaintiff has field this suit seeking permanent injunction restraining passing off, infringement of copyright, rendition of accounts of profits, damages, cost and delivery up of infringing goods. The plaintiffs case is as follows:2. The plaintiff, Dr. Reddys Laboratories Ltd., is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Ameerpet, Hyderabad. The plaintiff submits that it is presently Indias second largest pharmaceutical company, and an emerging global pharmaceutical house with th...
Union of India Vs. Vishwas Bhamburkar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Decision:13. 09.2013 W.P.(C) 3660/2012 & CM 7664/2012 (stay) UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, CGSC, Mr. Akshay Chandra and Mr. Ravjyot Singh, Advs. versus VISHWAS BHAMBURKAR ..... Respondent Through: respondent in person CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(ORAL) The respondent filed an application on 14.5.2011 with the PIO in the Ministry of Tourism, PSW Division, seeking an authenticated photocopy along with the file notings of the Project Report for Development of Ayurvedic Health Resort and Herbal Garden at Vagamon, which was submitted by the Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala in December, 2005 and was bearing file number 426/D(CN) dated 20.02.2006.2. In his reply, the PIO stated that the said project report had not been received in the Ministry of Tourism. Being dissatisfied with the reply furnished by the PIO, the respondent preferred an appeal before the First Appella...
Rajesh Rathi and ors. Vs. Golden Rathi Star Industries Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2013
* + THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI C.S (OS) Nos. 1424/2003 Date of Decision:13. 09.2013 RAJESH RATHI & ORS. Through: ......Plaintiffs Mr. Amarjit Singh, Ms. Vernika Tomar, Ms.Vibha Arya, Advs Versus GOLDEN RATHI STAR INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. ......Defendants Through: Ex-parte. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J.1. This is a suit for permanent injunction restraining the infringement, passing off, unfair competition, dilution of the trademark RATHI along with rendition of accounts and for destruction of all material bearing the impugned trademark/trade name.2. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows. Plaintiff no. 12, Rathi Foundation, plaintiff (the Trust) is a trust registered under the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. Plaintiffs no. 1 to 11 are its trustees and they all belong to the families of late Sh. Gordhan Das Rathi, Sh. Hari Kishan Rathi and Sh. Chand Rattan Rathi. The plaintiffs submit that the present suit has been instituted by all the trustees...
- ‹ Prev
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- Next ›
- Last »