Delhi Court January 2014 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.
Yogita Godara Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:10. 01.2014 + W.P.(C) 152/2014 YOGITA GODARA ..... Petitioner versus FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the petitioner: Mr Ashish Aggarwal, Adv. For the respondents: Mr Raj Kr. Singh, Adv. for Mr Karunesh Tandon, Adv. for R-1/ FCI. Mr Jatan Singh, CGSC with Mr Soayib Qureshi, Adv. for R2/UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER, J W.P.(C) 152/2014 & CM No.281/2014 (Stay) 1. Issue notice.2. Mr Raj Kr. Singh accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1, while Mr Jatan Singh accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.2.3. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 says that in view of the directions, that I propose to pass, no reply is necessary.4. The petitioner has approached this court seeking the following broad reliefs: (i) quashing the show cause notice dated 06.12.2013; (ii) injunct respondent no.1 from terminating her services; and (iii...
S.K. Srivastava Vs. Ms. X and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:10. 01.2014 CONT. APP.(C) 1 /2013 S.K. SRIVASTAVA .....Appellant versus MS. X AND ANR. .....Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Ram Jethmalani, Sr. Advocate with Mr Ashish Dixit, Mr S.K. Gupta, Mr Karan Kalia, P.R Mala For the Respondents : Mr Jayant K. Mehta, Mr Sukant Vikram, Mr Anuj Kapoor for Respondent 1 & 2. Ms. Maneesha Dhir with Ms. Vanessa Singh for CBDT. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The present is appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 19 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and impugns the order dated 04.01.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Cont. Cas (C) No.330/2012. The said order dated 04.01.2013 is hereinafter referred to as the impugned order. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has imposed a punishment of civil imprisonment for ...
M/S Jsc Centrodostroy Vs. M/S National Highways Authority of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:10.01.2014 FAO(OS) 508/2013 M/s JSC CENTRODOSTROY .....Appellant versus M/s NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA .....Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr C. U. Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr Vikas Sharma and Mr Amit Chaudhary. For the Respondent : Ms Padma Priya. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The present appeal has been filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) impugning the order dated 05.09.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in OMP no.855/2013. The said order dated 05.09.2013 is hereinafter referred to as the impugned order. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the application filed by the appellant, under section 34 of the Act, challenging the arbitral award dated 01.06.2013 whereby the claims of the appellant with r...
Deepak Chawla Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI R-10 + CRL.A. 42 of 2008 & CRL.M.B. 81 of 2008 and CRL.M.A. 4435 of 2008 DEEPAK CHAWLA Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Shiv Charan Garg, Mr. Imran Khan & Mr. Shashank Mittal, Advocates versus THE STATE & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, Advocate for the State. Mr. Vikram Nandarajog and Mr. Sushil Jaswal, Advocates for Respondent No.2-NDPL. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR % ORDER1001.2014 1. This is an appeal filed by Mr. Deepak Chawla against the impugned judgment dated 15th December 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Special Electricity Court in Complaint Case No.10 of 2006 convicting the Appellant of the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (EA), and against an order of the same date sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fixing the civil liability to Rs. 3 crores.2. On 20th May 2005, the complainant North Delhi Power Limited (NDPL) organised a raid at the pre...
Yogeshwar Sharma and anr Vs. Vice Chancellor University of Delhi North ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:10. 01.2014 + W.P.(C) 190/2014 YOGESHWAR SHARMA & ANR ..... Petitioners Through: versus VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF DELHI NORTH CAMPUS, DELHI & ORS Through: ..... Respondents Advocated who appeared in this case For the petitioners: Mr. P.C. Sharma, Advocate For the respondents: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate for respondent no.1/ University of Delhi CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J1 The petitioners herein claim to be appointed as Associate Professors in the Department of Chemistry in Moti Lal Nehru College, University of Delhi. They aver that they have been teaching their respective subjects of specialization since their appointment in the aforementioned college.2. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent no.4 had applied in 2006 for appointment to the post of Lecturer in the reserved category. The said respondent had apparently given his preference as inorganic chemistry. It ...
Smithkline Beecham Ltd and anr Vs. Hanish K Ajmera and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + IA Nos. 19404/2011 (O.XXXIX R.1 & 2 CPC) & 7794/2012 (O.XXXIX R.4 CPC) in CS(OS) 3024/2011 % Reserved on:22. d November, 2013 Decided on:10. h January, 2014 SMITHKLINE BEECHAM LTD & ANR ..... Plaintiff Through Mr. Manav Kumar, Mr. Manoj Kumar Sahu, Advs. versus HANISH K AJMERA & ANR ..... Defendant Through Mr. Gautam Panjwani, Mr. Rahul Malik, Advs. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 Both the applications can be decided by a common order as one seeks grant of interim injunction pending the disposal of the suit and the other vacation of the ad interim injunction granted on 12th December, 2011 by this Court in favour of the plaintiff.2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that the registration of the trademark CROCIN a Paracetamol tablet in favour of the plaintiff relates back to 26th April, 1982. CROCIN is a household name used everywhere. No part of the plaintiffs mark CROCIN is derived from the Paracetamol and is a coined and ado...
Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on :31. st October, 2013 Judgment pronounced on: January, 2014 % + WP(C) 1477/1998 BOMBA Y DYEING AND M ANUFA CT URING CO. LT D. & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Satvik Varma with Mr. Rohan Sharma and Mr. Saurab Seth, Advocates. Versus UOI A ND O RS. ..... Respondents None. Through CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.1. The petitioner ha s filed seeking quashing the present writ petition of the order dated 04.11.1997, passed by the Joint Secretary to Government of India, whereby the revision application filed by the petitioners under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Salt Act, 1944, (Act, in short) against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai was ======================================================================= rejected.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of the rebate claim of Rs.2,18,694,64/- made under Rule 191A of the petiti...
Max Hospital, Pitampura Vs. Medical Council of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:3. d December, 2013 Pronounced on:10. h January, 2014 + W.P.(C) 1334/2013 MAX HOSPITAL, PITAMPURA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Sanjeev Puri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sajad Sultan, Advocate versus MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA .... Respondent Through Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate with Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL JUDGMENT G.P. MITTAL, J.1. By virtue of this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner hospital seeks quashing of the minutes of the meeting of the Ethics Committee dated 27.10.2012 whereby it was held that there was medical negligence on the part of Dr. Alka Gupta, Dr. Navita Kumari and Dr. Pooja Bhatia in treating the patient Nitika Manchanda (the deceased) post her Lower Segment Caesarian Section Procedure (LSCS) on 03.05.2009. The observations of the Ethics Committee against the doctors and the Petitioner hospital are extracted hereunder wher...
North Delhi Power Ltd. Vs. Wheels Polymers Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.212/2010 & CM No.20606/2010 10th January, 2014 % NORTH DELHI POWER LTD. Through: ......Appellant Mr. K.Datta and Mr. Manish Srivastava, Advocates. VERSUS WHEELS POLYMERS PVT. LTD. & ANR. ...... Respondents. Through: Mr. Pankaj Nagpal & Mr. Rajat Bhalla, Advocates. 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 is filed against the judgment of the appellate court dated 7.7.2010 which allowed the appeal of the present respondent no.1 and who was the applicant in the application under Section 144 read with Section 151 CPC filed in the trial court. The appellate court allowed the appeal of the respondent herein and who was the appellant in the appellate court. Trial court by its judgment dated 20.11.2002 had dismissed the application, and against which judgment the respondent herein had filed the appeal, and in which appeal the respondent-applicant w...
V.K. Nayar Vs. Mrs. Usha Puri and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.S. (OS) No.1884 of 2009 & I.A. No.12903/2009 Decided on :10. h January, 2014 Plaintiff V.K. NAYAR Through: Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate. Versus Defendants MRS. USHA PURI & ORS. Through: Mr. Dhiraj Sachdeva, Advocate for D-4. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) 1. Vide order dated 5.4.2013, my learned predecessor had framed the following preliminary issue :Whether the suit is liable to be rejected being barred by limitation?. (OPD)2. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as the learned counsel for the defendants. Before dealing with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendant, it would be pertinent to give briefly the facts of the case.3. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the memorandum of understanding dated 8.4.1989 and for consequential relief of declaration and mandatory injunction. The case which was set up in the pla...
- ‹ Prev
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- Next ›
- Last »