Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 7 of about 723 results (0.021 seconds)A.K. JaIn Vs. Union Bank of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:30. 01.2014 + W.P.(C) 15099/2004 A.K. JAIN ..... PETITIONER VERSUS UNION BANK OF INDIA AND ANR. ... RESPONDENTS ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE: For the Petitioner: Mr. Sarvesh Bisaria, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. O.P. Gaggar, Advocate CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J1 This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.06.1999 passed by the disciplinary authority; order dated 05.01.2001 passed by the appellate authority; and lastly, the communication dated 22.02.2002 issued on behalf of the reviewing authority.2. The challenge, briefly, has arisen, in the background of the following facts :2.1 The petitioner was appointed as a clerk with respondent no.1 bank, in 1973. Between 1976 and 28.05.1988, the petitioner got promoted from clerical grade to MMGS-II. In August, 1988, the petitioner was transferred to the Samastipur branch in Patna. The petitioner was posted in the said bran...
Tag this Judgment!Salil Maheshwri Vs. the High Court of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.3426/2013 Reserved on:22. d January, 2014 Date of Decision:30th January, 2014 % SALIL MAHESHWRI ..... Petitioner Through Mr. R.K. Kapoor, Ms. Shweta Kapoor, Ms. Rekha Giri & Mr. Rajat Kapoor, Advocates. versus THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND OTHERS ..... Respondents Through Mr. Chetan Lokur & Mr. Karan Mehta, Advocates for Mr. Viraj R. Datar, Advocate for responden-DHC. Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 4. WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.3392/2013 NIDHI MUTREJA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Gaurav Gupta & Mr. Ajay Mohan Gulati, Advocates. versus REGISTRAR GENERAL, DELHI HIGH COURT & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Chetan Lokur, Mr. Karan Mehta, Advocates for Mr. Viraj R. Datar, Advocate for responden-DHC. Mr. Joginder Sukhija, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.3428/2013 MANEESH KUMAR SHUKLA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. R.K. Kapoor, Ms. Shweta Kapoor, Ms. Rekha Giri & Mr. Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Advocate Rajender Kumar Dudeja Vs. High Court of Delhi
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:30. 01.2014 W.P.(C) 249/2014 & CM4962014 ADVOCATE RAJENDER KUMAR DUDEJA ..... Petitioner versus HIGH COURT OF DELHI ..... Respondent W.P.(C) 624/2014 & CMs 1243-1244/2014 DEEPAK ANAND ..... Petitioner versus THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, DELHI HIGH COURT & ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in these petitions: For the Petitioners : Mr Rajender Kumar Dudeja, petitioner-in-person, in WP(C) No.249/2014. Mr V.P.Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr N.S.Vasisht, Mr Vishal Singh, Mr Arpan Sharma in WP(C) No.624/2014. For the Respondents : Mr Rajiv Bansal, Ms Debdatta, Ms Khushboo Garg, Mr Anchit Sharma for respondent No.1 in both the petitions. Mr Prashant Mehta and Ms Priya Pathania for respondent Nos. 2&3 in WP(C) No.624/2014. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. These writ petitions challenge the advertisement issued by the Delhi High Court in resp...
Tag this Judgment!C.D.Joseph Vs. Smt. Saraswati Devi and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA Nos.301/2005 & 302/2005 30th January, 2014 % +RSA3012005 C.D.JOSEPH Through: ......Appellant Ms. Suman Kapoor, Advocate. VERSUS SMT. SARASWATI DEVI & ANR. Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rajender Aggarwal, Advocate. +RSA3022005 SURINDER KUMAR JAIN & ORS. ......Appellants Through: Ms. Suman Kapoor, Advocate. VERSUS RAJ KUMAR Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rajender Aggarwal, Advocate. 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 impugned judgment of the first appellate court dated 2.7.2005. The first appellate court by the impugned judgment allowed the two appeals which were filed by the respondent no.1 herein, and who is also the respondent no.1 in the other connected appeal being RSA No.302/2005. By the self-same impugned judgment appellate court dismissed th...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Anand Vs. the Registrar General, Delhi High Court and ors.
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:30. 01.2014 W.P.(C) 249/2014 & CM4962014 ADVOCATE RAJENDER KUMAR DUDEJA ..... Petitioner versus HIGH COURT OF DELHI ..... Respondent W.P.(C) 624/2014 & CMs 1243-1244/2014 DEEPAK ANAND ..... Petitioner versus THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, DELHI HIGH COURT & ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in these petitions: For the Petitioners : Mr Rajender Kumar Dudeja, petitioner-in-person, in WP(C) No.249/2014. Mr V.P.Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr N.S.Vasisht, Mr Vishal Singh, Mr Arpan Sharma in WP(C) No.624/2014. For the Respondents : Mr Rajiv Bansal, Ms Debdatta, Ms Khushboo Garg, Mr Anchit Sharma for respondent No.1 in both the petitions. Mr Prashant Mehta and Ms Priya Pathania for respondent Nos. 2&3 in WP(C) No.624/2014. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. These writ petitions challenge the advertisement issued by the Delhi High Court in resp...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Coim India Pvt Ltd Vs. Rexor India Ltd and ors
Court: Delhi
$~ 30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 287/2011 % Judgment dated 30.01.2014 M/S COIM INDIA PVT LTD ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Pankaj Chaudhary, Advocate versus REXOR INDIA LTD & ORS Through: None. ..... Defendant CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) I.A. 8952/2011 1. This is an application for summons for judgment. No further orders are required to be passed in the application and the application is accordingly disposed of. CS(OS) 287/2011 2. Despite the matter being passed over once and called a second time, none is present on behalf of the defendant. The plaintiff has filed the present suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After service of summons in the prescribed form, the defendant filed address for service and thereafter an application was filed by the plaintiff for summons for judgment.3. In terms of Sub Rule (5) of Rule (3) of Order 37 CPC, defendant was to file an application for leave to defend. In the order dated 20.5....
Tag this Judgment!Rukma Tandon Vs. Muthoot Finance Limited and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.10/2013 30th January, 2014 % RUKMA TANDON Through: ......Appellant Proxy counsel for Mr. M.S.Oberoi, Advocate. VERSUS MUTHOOT FINANCE LIMITED & ANR. Through: None. ...... Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM No.17847/2013 (Restoration) & CM No.17848/2013 (Delay) For the reasons stated in the application delay is condoned and appeal is restored to its original number. CMs stand disposed of. FAO102013 1. This first appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 impugning the judgment of the court below dated 4.7.2012 dismissing the objections filed by the appellant herein.2. Appellant took two loans. One was of Rs.3lacs and another of Rs.40,000/- on 14.3.2007 and 7.4.2007 respectively from the respondents herein. These loans were taken against pledge of gold ornaments and on failure of the appellant/borrower to repay the ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Suman Taneja Vs. Rakesh Taneja and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.22/2014 30th January, 2014 % SMT. SUMAN TANEJA Through: ......Appellant Mr. S.S. Dogra, Advocate. VERSUS RAKESH TANEJA AND ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Mr. Sudhir K. Makkar, Advocate with Ms. Meenakshi Singh, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) Caveat No.83/2014 1. Since the counsel appears for the caveator, caveat stands discharged. C.M. No.1403/2014 (condonation of delay) 2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 22 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. C.M. No.1405/2014 (condonation of delay) 3. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 51 days in re- filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. C.M. No.1406/2014 (condonation of delay) 4. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 17 days in re- filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. + RSA No.22/2014 and C.M. No.1...
Tag this Judgment!Jatinder Sardana and anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 258/2014 & CM No.507/2014 Decided on :30. 01.2014 IN THE MATTER OF JATINDER SARDANA & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through : Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Praveen Chauhan, Advocate versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Arjun Pant, Advocate for R-1. Mr. P.C. Dhingra, Advocate for R-2. CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J.(ORAL) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners praying inter alia for cancellation of a Conveyance Deed dated 12.8.2013 issued by the respondent No.1/DDA in favour of the respondent No.2.2. On the last date of hearing, counsel for the petitioners was asked to address the Court on the maintainability of the present petition as it was observed that disputed question of facts have been raised therein that cannot be determined in writ proceedings. Mr. Praveen Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners had sought an adjournment to enable him to exam...
Tag this Judgment!Shakeela Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 2099/2013 % Date of decision: January 30, 2014 SHAKEELA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Vijay Sharma with Mr. Jairaj Mudgal, Advs. versus THE STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, St. Counsel (Crl.) for State with Ms. Priyanka Kapoor, Adv. for State. SI Amit Verma P.S. Shakarpur. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL VEENA BIRBAL, J.1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.10.2013 passed by the Lt.Governor of Delhi in Crl.Appeal No.227/2013 whereby the order dated 7.10.2013 passed by Addl. Commissioner of PoliceI, East District, Delhi externing the petitioner for a period of 2 years from the limits of NCT of Delhi has been upheld.2. The background of the case is as under:On 1.4.2010 a notice under Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was sent to the petitioner by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police alleging therein that she was engaged in th...
Tag this Judgment!