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.
M/S Kbm Gems and Jewellers Pvt Ltd Vs. Pnb
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: Pronounced on: + 21.08.2013 05.09.2013 IA No.16579/2011 in CS(OS) 2228/2011 M/S KBM GEMS AND JEWELLERS PVT LTD ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Adv. Through: ..... Defendant Mr. Rajinder Wali, Advocate versus PNB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.1. This is an application filed by the defendant under provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint. The accompanying plaint has been filed by the plaintiff pointing out that the plaintiff has been availing of numerous credit facilities offered by the defendant Bank since May 2009. On 26.05.2009, it is stated that the defendant sanctioned credit facilities in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 17.5 crores against collateral comprising of six immovable properties. On 15.10.2009, it is stated that the sanction limit of the plaintiff was enhanced to Rs. 33.5 crores without insisting on any additional collaterals. Thereafter, in March 2011, the d...
Vijendra Kumar Vs. Shailender Kapoor
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI I.A No. 2151/2013 in CS(OS) 2161/2011 Reserved on:27. h August, 2013 Decided on:5. h September, 2013 % VIJENDRA KUMAR Through ..... Plaintiff Mr. Tarique Siddiqui, Ms. Rakshan Ahmed, Mr. Aditya Gaur, Advs. versus SHAILENDER KAPOOR ..... Defendant Through Ms. Anju Lal, Adv. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA 1 By this application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC read with Section 151 CPC the plaintiff prays for passing of a decree of specific performance directing the defendant to perform his part of agreement dated 29 th August, 2010 and hand-over possession of ground floor, measuring 200 sq. yards, half portion of terrace/ roof rights at back side portion of third floor of suit property bearing No. 7/8, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) to the plaintiff and damages along with interest till realization and costs.2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/ applicant contends that a preliminary decree for part p...
Md. Azimur Rahman Vs. the University of Jamia Millia and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 7592/2012 and C.M. No.19270/2012 (for directions) 5th September, 2013 % MD. AZIMUR RAHMAN Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Manoj Swarup, Advocate with Ms. Latika Kohli, Advocate. Versus THE UNIVERSITY OF JAMIA MILLIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Jaya Goyal, Advocate with Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The petitioner by means of this writ petition impugns the order dated 9.11.2012 passed by the respondent No.1/University, namely Jamia Millia Islamia. By the impugned order, petitioner has been visited with the penalty of removal from services. The penalty was imposed as the Enquiry Committee found the petitioner guilty of harassment of Ms. Kulsum Fatima, Assistant Professor.2. To the Enquiry Committee of the respondent No.1/University, complaint dated 23.11.2011 was made by Ms. Kulsum Fatima and which was followed ...
Union of India Vs. Rasika Chaube
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2013
$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON:05. 09.2013 + W.P. (C) 5453/2013 CM APPL.12193, 12195/2013 UNION OF INDIA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr. Amrit Pal Singh, CGSC, Ms. Shruti Aggarwal and Mr. Kartikey Mahajan, Advocates. versus RASIKA CHAUBE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. V.S.R. Krishna, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. The present petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short C.A.T.) issuing the respondent/petitioner herein, directions that she ought to be considered for promotion to Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) in the Defence Accounts Service, in 1995. The C.A.T., by the impugned order, allowed the petition and issued the directions sought for; it held that a review DPC was warranted on the basis of the established facts and circumstances.2. The respondent (hereafter referred to as applicant)...
Madhu Bharti Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 3621/2011 & CM No. 7575/2011(Stay) 5th September, 2013 % MADHU BHARTI Through: ......Petitioner Petitioner in person. VERSUS GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Mr. Reeta Kaul, Adv. for R-1 Mr. Anil Gera, Adv. for R-2 and 3. Mr. S.C.Meena, DEO Zone-27. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. Petitioner who is present before me states that she needs assistance of a Defence Assistant for the purpose of conducting proceedings on her behalf in the departmental proceedings. There is no bar in law for a person to have a defence assistant. Of course, the defence assistant cannot be a lawyer in the departmental proceedings however, surely any employee of the school, in which the petitioner is working, can be appointed by the petitioner as a defence assistant to assist her or to conduct the case on her behalf in the departmental proceedings. Due repr...
Madhu Bharti Vs. S.D. Hari Mandir Girls Sr. Sec. School and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 2067/2010 & CM 4133/2010 (stay) 5th September, 2013 % MADHU BHARTI Through: ......Petitioner Petitioner in person. VERSUS S.D. HARI MANDIR GIRLS SR. SEC. SCHOOL & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Anil Gera, Adv. for R-1 to 3. Ms. Purnima Maheshwari and Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advs. for R-4. Mr. S.C.Meena, DEO Zone-27. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. Petitioner who appears in person prays for adjournment as counsel is not available. The request is opposed. I do not think that this is a fit case for adjournment inasmuch as in the connected matter which has been disposed of by me, there was a stay operating against conduct of the departmental proceedings, and which departmental proceedings were going on since 2009 and the writ petition was only filed in the year 2010. I have therefore perused the records of the case. I may note that I have allowed the connecte...
Neena Pahwa Vs. Sumit Pahwa
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on: September 05, 2013 + CM(M) No.393/2013 & C.M. No.5938/2013 NEENA PAHWA Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Rajesh Tyagi, Adv. with Mr.Harsh Khanna & Mr.Vaibhav Kumar, Advs. versus SUMIT PAHWA ..... Respondent Through None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(ORAL) 1. Neena Pahwa, the petitioner, wife of the respondent Sumit Pahwa, who is in judicial custody at Jail No.6, Tihar Jail, New Delhi, filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders dated 10th December, 2012 and 22nd January, 2013 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in HMA No.422/2011 through Sh.Suresh Kapoor, Pairokar/family friend of the petitioner.2. By the impugned order dated 10th December, 2012, the application filed by Neena Pahwa, the present petitioner (respondent in the trial Court) under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the petition for dissolution of th...
M/S Jsc Centrodostroy Vs. M/S National Highways Authority of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2013
$~34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:05. 09.2013 + O.M.P. 855/2013 M/S JSC CENTRODOSTROY ..... Petitioner versus M/S NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner: Mr Vatsal Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms Padma Priya, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J (ORAL) 1. This is a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act). The matter came up for the first time on 30.08.2013 when, Mr Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner, was heard in support of the petition. Since Ms Padma Priya, who represents M/s M.V. Kini & Company, the concern on the panel of the respondent, was present in court, Mr Sandeep Sharma was asked to supply a copy of the petition to her. Ms Padma Priya was asked to assist the court to obtain the respondents response in the matter.2. The matter was posted for hearing on 02.09.2013. O...
Ved Prakash Gera Vs. Delhi Library Board and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) No.8171/2005 5th September, 2013 % VED PRAKASH GERA Through: ..... Petitioner Petitioner in person. Versus DELHI LIBRARY BOARD AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Mahender Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. Petitioner by means of this writ petition had sought release of his terminal benefits and certain other monetary emoluments which were withheld on account of a criminal case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which was filed against him by his daughter-in-law.2. It is not disputed that during the pendency of the petition most of the entitlements claimed by the petitioner, taking the criminal case as not been filed, have been paid and the petitioner has received all the terminal benefits. Only three reliefs now remain and which are (i) the claim of ACP benefits as claimed by the petitioner, (ii) payment...
Geeta Devi and ors. Vs. Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2013
$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:5th September, 2013 % + MAC.APP. 751/2013 GEETA DEVI & ORS. Through: ..... Appellants Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate. Versus IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal is preferred for enhancement of the compensation amount against the impugned award dated 18.05.2013, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.12,48,376/- as compensation.2. The sole ground argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants is that the learned Tribunal has erred in considering a sum of Rs.5278/- per month as minimum wages of non-matriculate prevalent at that time. Whereas, as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the minimum wages of non-matriculate prevalent at that time, i.e., on 01.02.2010, the date of the accident, were Rs.5,850/- per month.3. Learned counsel ...
- ‹ Prev
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- Next ›
- Last »