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.
Shri Shanker Prashad Mukerji Vs. Union OfIndia and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.7835/2012 12th September, 2013 % SHRI SHANKER PRASHAD MUKERJI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Manoj Chatterjee, Advocate with Ms. K. Iyer, Advocate and Mr. Basab Sengupta, Advocate. versus UNION OFINDIA AND ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Advocate with Mr. Girish Panda, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Rajiv Kapur, Advocate with Ms. Vatsala Rai, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner who retired as a Vice Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) impugns the letter dated 9.4.2012 issued by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.4 whereby recovery was directed to be made from the pension being paid to the petitioner.2. The reason for recovery being initiated by the respondent No.2 is because the pension paid to the petitioner was in excess of th...
Suman Pahuja and anr. Vs. Naresh Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2013
$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:12. h September, 2013 % + MAC.APP. 814/2012 SUMAN PAHUJA & ANR. Through: Versus NARESH KUMAR & ORS. Through: ..... Appellants Mr.Navneet Goyal and Ms.Mamta Bhardwaj, Advocates. ..... Respondents Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate for Respondent No.3/Insurance Company. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of compensation amount against the impugned award dated 26.04.2012, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation as under:Loss of dependency : Rs.6,22,440.00 On account of Love and affection : Rs. 25,000.00 Funeral Expenses : Rs. 10,000.00 Total MAC.APP.814 /2012 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants has argued that the deceased was 23 years of age at the time of accident. Since the claimant could not produce any proof of salary, therefore, keeping in view the minimum wages as applicable for ...
Saroj Khanijo and ors. Vs. Rishika Berry and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2013
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:12. h September, 2013 MAC.APP. 1001/2011 SAROJ KHANIJO & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Pramod Kumar Sharma, Adv. versus RISHIKA BERRY & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms.Suman Bagga, Adv. for R3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Instant appeal has been preferred for enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the ld. Tribunal vide impugned order dated 19.07.2011.2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that while granting the compensation of Rs.13,10,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum, ld. Tribunal has not granted future prospects as the deceased was 47 years of age on the date of accident.3. Ld. Counsel has relied upon a case of Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) Scale 563 wherein the Apex Court has held as under: Since the Court in Santosh Devis case (Supra) actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaries persons a...
Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors Vs. Sam Mathew
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2013
$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C) 1778/2013 % DECIDED ON:12. 09.2013 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocate. versus SAM MATHEW ..... Respondent Through: Mr. N.M. Varghese with Ms. Tessy Varghese, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. The Government of NCT of Delhi is aggrieved by an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (C.A.T.) dated 20.11.2012. The impugned order has directed that the respondent/applicant should be treated as having been appointed to the post of Technical Assistant w.e.f. 2001, i.e., upon his fulfilling the eligibility condition with respect to the technical qualification prescribed by the Rules.2. The brief facts are that the applicant was appointed as Lab Assistant on 04.08.1978 and was subsequently appointed on direct recruitment basis as Lab Technician on 10.06.1986. That post constituted a feede...
Vasudev and anr. Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: August 27, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: September 12, 2013 + W.P.(C) 3143/2002 VASUDEV & ANR. .....Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate versus UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. The petitioners are directly recruited Engineers in the Central Public Works Department (hereinafter referred to as the CPWD). They were appointed as direct recruits to the post of Assistant Engineer and earned promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in due course of time. The next promotional post as per the notified Recruitment Rules was that of Superintending Engineer.2. Prior to the implementation of the recommendation of the 5 th Central Pay Commission Executive Engineers were placed in the payscale `3000-4500 and Superintending Engineers were placed in the payscale `3700-5000.3. I...
Ramesh Thadani Vs. Mohit Garera
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :22. 08.2013 Pronounced on:12. 09.2013. IA No. 16413/2012 in CS(OS) 668/2010 RAMESH THADANI Through versus MOHIT GARERA Through ..... Plaintiff Mr.Rohit Sharma, Advocate ..... Defendant Mr.Anil Sharma and Ms.Usha Singh, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.IA No. 16413/2012 (Order 37 Rule 3(5) CPC) 1. This is an application under Order 37 Rule 3(5) CPC for grant of leave to defend filed by the defendant.2. The plaintiff has filed the accompanying suit stating that the plaintiff had a family relationship with the defendant and on the basis of the said relationship, a friendly loan was given to the defendant. It is stated that a total sum of Rs. 32,25,000/- was advanced on different dates to the defendant. It is stated that the defendant acknowledged receiving the said loan and his liability and agreed to pay it back along with accrued interest at the rate of 1.25% per month. The defendant has issued 11 pr...
Harvinder Singh @ Bittoo Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 722/2010 % Date of decision: September 12, 2013 HARVINDER SINGH @ BITTOO ..... Appellant Through: Mr. S.B. Dandapani, Adv. Appellant present in J.C. versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Verma, APP for State. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL VEENA BIRBAL, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15 th January, 2010 whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable u/s 307 IPC and the order of sentence dated 18 th January, 2010 whereby the appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for five years with a fine of ` 5000/- and in default of payment fine to undergo SI for one month.2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant has stated that appellant is not challenging the conviction of the appellant u/s 307 IPC. It is submitted that appellant has already undergone major portion of sentence, as such his sentence be reduced to already undergone by...
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shanta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2013
$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:12. h September, 2013 MAC.A. 609/2012 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ......Appellant Through: Mr. S.K.Ray and Mr.Amitava Poddar, Advocates. Versus SMT. SHANTA & ORS. Through: .....Respondents Mr. Nitin Joshi, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Pushp Saini, Advocate for Respondent No.5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.1. Vide the present appeal, the appellant/Insurance Company is assailing the judgement dated 02.03.2012, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.8,51,528/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization in favour of the respondents/claimants.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company has argued that, the deceased Sumit Kumar was a young boy of 19 years at the date of accident, i.e., 19.11.2009, who left behind his widowed mother and three sisters. He submit...
Saroj Khanijo and ors. Vs. Ishika Berry and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2013
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:12. h September, 2013 MAC.APP. 1001/2011 SAROJ KHANIJO & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Pramod Kumar Sharma, Adv. versus ISHIKA BERRY & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms.Suman Bagga, Adv. for R3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Instant appeal has been preferred for enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the ld. Tribunal vide impugned order dated 19.07.2011.2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that while granting the compensation of Rs.13,10,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum, ld. Tribunal has not granted future prospects as the deceased was 47 years of age on the date of accident.3. Ld. Counsel has relied upon a case of Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) Scale 563 wherein the Apex Court has held as under: Since the Court in Santosh Devis case (Supra) actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaries persons as...
Srimali Vewnkiteela Vs. Union of India and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2013
$~ 6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C) 6535/2012 Date of decision:12. h September, 2013 SRIMALI VEWNKITEELA Through : ..... Petitioner Mr. Sukhjinder Singh, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO GITA MITTAL, J.(Oral) 1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17th August, 2012 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi rejecting O.A.No.165/2012 on the ground that the Tribunal did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the subject matter of the writ petition.2. As per the impugned order, the petitioner had assailed the communications dated 11th March, 2005, 14th March, 2005, 20th April, 2009, 3rd May, 2010, 25th August, 2010 and 28th February, 2012 issued by the respondents. The Tribunal was of the view that communication which was assailed is a matter of po...
- ‹ Prev
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- Next ›
- Last »