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 Harbhajan Singh Vs. Airports Authority of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P (C) No. 2076/2011 Judgment reserved on:31. t July, 2013 Judgment delivered on:9. h September, 2013 % SHRI HARBHAJAN SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.R.Venkataramani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vijay Kumar and Ms.Neelam Singh, Advocates. Versus AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. K.K. Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Digvijay Rai, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.1. This is the second round of litigation inter se the parties before this Court.2. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the termination order dated 27.06.1997, inquiry report dated 09.08.2010 passed contrary to the directions passed vide order dated 26.03.2010 by the honble Supreme Court of India and impugned order dated 27.01.2011 of the respondent/Airports Authority of India (AAI), whereby the reply of the petitioner to second show cause notice in respect of the proposed punishment was rejected.3. He is al...
Dinesh Rai Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: September 09, 2013 + CRL.A.NO.326/2004 DINESH RAI Represented by: .....Appellant Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate/Amicus Curiae versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel (Crl.) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Since the appeal has reached for hearing and none appears for the appellant I appoint Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate, who is empanelled by the Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee as the Amicus Curiae to argue the appeal on behalf of the appellant.2. Fee of learned Amicus Curiae shall be paid by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.3. Appellant Dinesh Rai has been convicted vide impugned judgment and order dated March 08, 2004 for having committed offences punishable under Section 392/397 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and vide order on sentence dated March 09, 2004 has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years noting the fact t...
M/S Jivnas Marketing Vs. Container Corporation of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2013
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on:05. 08.2013 Judgment delivered on:09. 09.2013 + ARB. P. 127/2011 M/S JIVNAS MARKETING .....Petitioner Vs CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA .....Respondent Advocates appeared in this case: For the Petitioner: For the Respondent: Mr Sachin Sood & Ms Yeshi Rinchhen, Advocates. Mr D.D. Singh, Advocate. CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.1. This is a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 1996 Act) for appointment of an arbitrator. While the respondent does not dispute the existence of an arbitration agreement obtaining between the parties, it resists the appointment of an arbitrator on the limited ground that no dispute subsists between the parties. The respondent, in other words, pleads accord and satisfaction. That being the limited issue, I propose to advert to facts which are relevant for adjudicating upon the said issue.2. The petitioner submitted its bid ...
O.P.Nasa and anr. Vs. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 6633/2011 9th September, 2013 % O.P.NASA & ANR. Through: ......Petitioners Mr. Atul Kumar, Adv. VERSUS DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD ...... Respondent Through: Mr. Parvinder Chauhan and Mr. Nishant Prateek, Advocates. 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, two reliefs are claimed. The first relief is as regards the challenge to the suspension order dated 29.9.2010. The second relief pertains to claim of retirement benefits such as gratuity, pension, earned leave encashment etc.2. So far as the first prayer is concerned, counsel for the petitioner does not press the same.3. So far as the second relief is concerned, the same is fully covered by the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 6770/2013 decided on 14.8.2013. In the aforesaid jud...
P.N.Parashar Vs. Delhi Power Supply Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: % + 22.04.2013 Judgment delivered on:09. 09.2013 W.P.(C) 1884/1999 P.N.PARASHAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with M/s Tarun Gupta, Daphne Menezes, M.K.Ghosh, Advocates versus DELHI POWER SUPPLY CO. LTD. Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Vikram Nandrajog, Advocate with M/s Sushil Jaswal and Sheetesh Khanna, Advocates CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI JUDGMENT VIPIN SANGHI, J.C.M.Appln. Nos. 18451-52/2012 For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed and the writ petition is restored to its original number and status. WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 1884/1999 1. This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner to assail the award dated 18.04.1998 passed by Labour Court No.7, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in I.D. No. 52/1997,whereby the Labour Court held the petitioners dismissal to be legal and justified. The reference made by the Appropr...
Bharat Kumar Vs. Ashok Sahdev and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2013
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision:9. h September, 2013 + CS(OS) 1517/2010, IA No.18834/2011 (for condonation of delay), IA No.6254/2012 (u/O 7 R-11), IA No.10409/2012 (for directions) & IA No.12893/2012 (for directions). BHARAT KUMAR Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. Anil Sapra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sunil Magon, Adv. versus ASHOK SAHDEV & ORS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra with Mr. Omar Siddiqui & Mr. S. Tripathi, Advs. Ms. Bandana Shukla, Adv. for Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Adv. for GNCTD. AND + TEST.CAS. 61/2010, IAs No.7488/2012 (u/s 151 CPC) & 2539/2012 (u/O 1.R-3). BHARAT KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Anil Sapra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sunil Magon, Adv. versus STATE & OTHERS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, Adv. with Mr. Oman Siddiqui & Mr. Sudhindra Tripathi, Advs. Ms. Bandana Shukla, Adv. for Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Adv. for GNCTD. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J 1.This judgment adjudicates the objec...
M/S Agya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S Jones Lang Lasalle Property Consul ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:4th September, 2013 Date of Decision:9. h September, 2013 % + CO.A(SB) 19/2013 & Co.Appls.691/2013, 692/2013 & 848/2013 M/S AGYA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Anil Agarwal, Advocate. versus M/S JONES LANG LASALLE PROPERTY CONSULTANTS (INDIA) P. LTD. & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Navin Kumar with Ms. Rupal Bhatia and Ms. Rashmeet Kaur, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR JUDGMENT R.V. EASWAR, J.: This is an appeal filed under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 against the order passed by the Company Law Board on 14.3.2013 in CA No.260/2012 in Co.Pet.63(ND)/2008.2. The appeal has been filed in the following circumstances. The appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. It entered into a joint venture agreement on 28.10.2007 with another company by name Boortmal N.V., which is a company registered in Antwerp, Belgium for the purpose of set...
inder Kumar Lamba Vs. Abhishek Pahwa and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: August 30, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: September 09, 2013 + CM(M) No.30/2013 & C.M. No.484/2013 INDER KUMAR LAMBA Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Ajay Malhotra, Adv. with Ms.Hema Arora, Adv. versus ABHISHEK PAHWA & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr.P.K. Rawal, Adv. with Mr.Ajay Bahl, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner/landlord for setting-aside the order dated 13th December, 2012 passed by the Addl. Rent Controller, wherein the additional affidavit filed by the respondents/tenants after completion of the pleadings in the application for leave to defend was taken on record.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against the respondents in the year 2009, for bonafide requirement of his son who is de...
Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors. Vs. Neeraj Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2013
$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:09. 09.2013 + W.P.(C) 5670/2013, CAV.788/2013, C.M. APPL. 12542/2013 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through : Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate. versus NEERAJ KUMAR ..... Respondent Through : Sh. K.P. Gupta, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % CAV.788/2013 Learned counsel for the caveator has put in appearance. Cav. 788/2013 accordingly stands discharged. W.P.(C) 5670/2013, C.M. APPL. 12542/2013 (for stay) 1. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi is aggrieved by an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 08.04.2011. By the impugned order, CAT had quashed an order of penalty imposed upon W.P.(C) 5670/2013 Page 1 the respondent/applicant on the ground that the findings of the disciplinary authority warranted the penalty of reduction of pay for two years as well as denial of increments for the said period. In addition, the...
Sunil Sharma Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2013
$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: September 09, 2013 + CRL.A.219/2004 SUNIL SHARMA Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Saahila Lamba, Advocate/ Amicus Curiae. versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Pawan Sharma, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Since none appears for the appellant Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate on the panel of Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee has been requested to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant.2. Fee of learned Amicus Curiae Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate shall be paid by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.3. It was April 08, 1999. Dr. Tara Chand PW-5, went to PS Dabri and made a statement Ex.PW-5/A on basis whereof FIR for offences punishable under Section 308/34 IPC was registered against appellant Sunil Sharma, s/o Om Prakash and two other persons named Puran Chand and Vinod Kumar.4. As per the statement Ex.PW-5/A, Dr.Tara Chand stated that on April ...
- ‹ Prev
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- Next ›
- Last »