Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 35 of about 723 results (0.021 seconds)Mehtab Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on January 15, 2014 Judgment Delivered on January 20, 2014 + W.P.(C) 1397/2011 MEHTAB Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Rajiv Aggarwal, Advocate with Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, Adv. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms.Saroj Bidawat, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the award dated March 31, 2009 in I.D No.89/2008 (new), I.D No.175/1995 (old), whereby the Labour Court affirmed the termination of the petitioner as legal and denied him the relief.2. The brief facts as noted from the award are that the petitioner was engaged in the Horticulture Department of the MCD as Maali/Baildar with effect from March 26, 1990. He was paid wages in terms of the notification issued by the erstwhile Delhi Administration under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, payable to casual/unskilled workers. It is the petitioners case that h...
Tag this Judgment!Maya Ram Sharma Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: January 13, 2014 Judgment Pronounced on: January 20, 2014 + W.P.(C) 3583/2001 MAYA RAM SHARMA Represented by: .....Petitioner Mr.Anil Gautam, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Richa Kapoor, Advocate with Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate Mr.Bhupinder Sharma, Dy.Commandant, BSF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT NATH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. The present writ petition challenges the order dated July 31, 1994 passed by the Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) holding petitioner guilty of the two charges framed against him and as a result ordering petitioner to be dismissed from service. The statutory petition filed by the petitioner against the said dismissal was rejected by the Competent Authority vide order dated December 07, 1999.2. The petitioner was serving as an ASI/Pharmacist in BSF and was attached to the 19th Battalion.3. A perusal of the original ...
Tag this Judgment!Giri Raj Singh Meena Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:13. 01.2014 Date of Decision:20. 01.2014 % + CRL. A. No.236 of 2010 GIRI RAJ SINGH MEENA Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Rashid Hashmi, Adv. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGEMENT V.K.JAIN, J.On 16.6.2000, the complainant Jagdish Tokas, came to the office of the Anti Corruption Branch of Delhi Police (for short ACB) and made a complainant, alleging therein that on 11.2.2000, he had a quarrel with Mr. Jayant Jain and his family members, at the time he was taking his car out of the parking and he had lodged FIR No.46/2000 against them. He further stated that after 2-3 days he came to know that a cross case has been registered against him vide FIR No.47/2000 at Police Station Vasant Vihar. He thereupon made a complaint to the Vigilance Cell of Delhi Police against the SHO, Police Station, Vasant Vihar as well as the Investigating Officer and had obtain...
Tag this Judgment!All India Cpwd Engineers Associaiton and anr. Vs. Union of India and o ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on January 10, 2014 Judgment Delivered on January 20, 2014 + W.P.(C) No.430/2013 ALL INDIA CPWD ENGINEERS ASSOCIAITON AND ANR. Represented by: ..... Petitioners Mr.Vinay Kr.Garg, Advocate with Mr.V.Sharma, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Represented by: ...... Respondents Mr.Yoginder Sukhija, Advocate with Mr.Yogesh Yogi, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.C.M No.16844/2013 This is an application seeking exemption from filing certified copy of the judgment and order dated October 30, 2013. The same is allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M No.16843/2013 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 11 days in filing the review petition. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Review Petition No.644/2013 in W.P.(C) 430/2013 1. The grounds on which the review of order dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil Kumar Bagga Vs. Dewan Chander Batra and anr.
Court: Delhi
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:20. h January, 2014. % + RFA No.268/2010 SUSHIL KUMAR BAGGA Through: ..... Appellant Mr. K.R. Chawla & Mr. Sunil Verma & Advs. Versus DEWAN CHANDER BATRA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Yashish Chandra, Adv. for R-1. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. The appeal impugns the judgment and decree (dated 19th December, 2009 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi in CS No.98/2008 filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff against the appellant Sh. Sushil Kumar Bagga and the respondent No.2 Smt. Chander Kanta Sharma) of specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 16th September, 1985 by the respondent No.2/defendant No.1 in favour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff with respect to property No.198/17A, Garhi, East of Kailash, New Delhi and further declaring the Sale Deed dated 9th March, 1999 executed by the respondent No.2/defendant No.1...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Nath Malik Vs. Tulsi Nath Malik and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA3902006 20th January, 2014 % RAM NATH MALIK ..... Appellant Through Mr. Rahul Rohtagi, Advocate versus TULSI NATH MALIK & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Joginder Sukhima, Mr. Shailendra Babbar, Advocates for respondent Nos. 5 & 6. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This regular second appeal impugns the judgment of the Appellate Court dated 08.09.2006 by which the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal against the judgment of the trial court dated 16.11.1999 which dismissed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff. Appellant-plaintiff is hence the appellant in this second appeal. Appellant-plaintiff has since died and is now represented by his widow.2. I must state that the issues in the present case would have become difficult to understand inasmuch there are nine different khasra/Revenue Field Members and separate facts constituting various causes of action were...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Laxmi Devi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on January 10 , 2014 Judgment Delivered on January 20, 2014 + W.P.(C) 8144/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Petitioner Represented by: Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Advocate. versus LAXMI DEVI Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Rajiv Aggarwal, Advocate with Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the Award dated December 18, 2006 in I.D. No.116 of 2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal whereby it held that the respondent is entitled to reinstatement with 50% back wages and with a further direction to consider her case for regularization as Safai-karamcharias per policy of regularization, taking into consideration her seniority with effect from June 14, 2004.2. It is not in dispute that the respondent was engaged by the petitioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi. It is the case of the respondent that she was engaged a...
Tag this Judgment!Vishal Vs. the State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :15. h JANUARY, 2014 DECIDED ON :20. h JANUARY, 2014 + CRL.A. 648/2011 & CRL.M.B. 647/2013 VISHAL Through : ....Appellant Ms. Garima Bhardwaj, Advocate with Ms.Naiem Jahan Heena, Advocate. VERSUS THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .Respondent Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Vishal (the appellant) seeks to question his conviction for offences under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC and 27 Arms Act by a judgment dated 04.08.2010 in Sessions Case No.56/10 arising out of FIR No.128/10 PS Sarai Rohilla. By an order on sentence dated 07.08.2010, he was awarded RI for seven years under Section 392 IPC read with Section 397 IPC and SI for three years under Section 27 Arms Act. The factual matrix from which the appeal germinates is as under :2. On 21.04.2010 at about 12.15 P.M. Surender Kumar boarded a private bus No.3553 on route No.231 from Daya Basti to go Deputy Ganj Market to purchase a dinner...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Seth Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Late Mahinder Kumar Seth and ors.
Court: Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:20. 01.2014 CO. A (SB)46/2013 M/S SETH HOTELS PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant versus LATE MAHINDER KUMAR SETH & ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Atul Sharma, Mr Nitesh Jain and Mr. Sugan Sethi, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr Atul Bandhu, Advocate for R-1. Mr R.S. Sharma, Advocate for R-2 and R-3. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J (ORAL) 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant company impugning the order dated 12.09.2013 passed by the Principal Bench, Company Law Board, whereby the Company Law Board has declined to vacate/modify the interim order dated 19.09.2006 passed earlier. By the interim order dated 19.09.2006 the Company Law Board had directed that status quo, with regard to the shareholding and the assets of the company, as of that date be maintained.2. Indisputably, the principal asset of the company is a plot of land allo...
Tag this Judgment!Nanak Ram Jaisinghani Vs. Tilak Raj Salooja and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.131/2013 20th January, 2014 % NANAK RAM JAISINGHANI Through: ......Appellant Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate. VERSUS TILAK RAJ SALOOJA & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Sethi, Advocate and Ms. Puja Anand, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the appellant/defendant impugns the judgments of the Courts below; of the appellate Court dated 17.5.2013 and of the trial court dated 5.3.2013; by which the suit of the respondent/landlord for possession and mesne profits has been decreed.2. In Delhi, for a suit to be maintainable in a civil court against a tenant, there are three requirements:(i) There was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. (ii) The rate of rent is more than Rs.3,500/- per month. (iii...
Tag this Judgment!