Delhi Court October 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 19 of about 220 results (0.022 seconds)Union Public Service Commission Vs. Smt. Renuka Tyagi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:14. 10.2014 % W.P.(C) 629/2014 & C.M. No.1250/2014 UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Through: ..... Petitioner Ms. Amita Kalkal Choudhary with Ms. Aditi Gupta, Advocates. versus SMT. RENUKA TYAGI Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Padma Kumar S., Advocate for R-1. Mr. Vikas Mahajan, CGSC for R-2&3 along with Mr. Rohan Gupta, Mr. S.S. Rai and Ms. Ruchika Mahajan, Advocates. . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI VIPIN SANGHI, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. The present Writ Petition has been preferred by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the order dated 20.12.2012 passed in OA No.1223/2012, as also the against the Order dated 19.11.2013 passed in R.A. No.123/2013 in O.A. No.1223/2012 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (CAT/ Tribunal) whereby, the Tribunal allowed the Original Application of the respondent No.1 and di...
Tag this Judgment!Dgof Employees Association and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:24. 09.2014 Pronounced on:14. 10.2014 + W.P.(C) 4606/2013, C.M. No.10601/2014 D.G.O.F. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ritika Gambhir, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ajay Digpaul, Advocate, for Resp. No.1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % C.M. No.10601/2014 For the reasons mentioned in the application, C.M. No.10601/2014 is allowed. W.P.(C) 4606/2013 1. The petitioner (hereafter called "the Association") is aggrieved by the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 18.10.2012 in O.A. No.39/2011 and the further order dated 01.04.2013 in R.P. No.43/2011 (hereafter called "the review order). The Association had sought a direction to quash the order of the Ordnance Factories Board, Ministry of Defence (hereafter called "the W.P.(C) 4606/...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kusum Lata Singh Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:10. 09.2014 Pronounced on:14. 10.2014 + W.P.(C) 7025/2010 SMT. KUSUM LATA SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate with Sh. A.K. Trivedi, Sh. Rajeev Manglik and Sh. Sameer Sharma, Advocates. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Through: Sh. Saqib, Advocate. ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % C.M. NO.15789/2013 (for early hearing) For the reasons mentioned in the application, C.M. No.15789/2013 is allowed. W.P.(C) 7025/2010 1. The petitioner in these proceedings - under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks directions to quash the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) - dated 07.09.2006 in O.A. No.1705/2006 (hereafter called "the main order"); the order dated 30.06.2008 in R.A. No.88/2008 (hereafter called "the review order") and the order dated 22.09.2009 in M.A. No.1635/2009 (hereafter called "the recall ...
Tag this Judgment!Washan Singh and ors Vs. State and anr
Court: Delhi
$~4 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 3887/2014 WASHAN SINGH & ORS Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. R.N. Sharma & Mr. Ajay Satija, Advocates with petitioners in person versus STATE & ANR Through: ..... Respondents Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP for State with SI Ajay Kumar, PS Khyala R-2/complainant in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(ORAL) 1. This petition has been moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No.286/2014 registered under Sections 307/323/34 IPC at Police Station Khyala on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.2. Issue notice.3. Counsel for the State enters appearance and accepts notice. The second respondent/complainant, Harsimranjeet Singh, is present in person. The petitioners are also present in person. All the parties are identified by the Investigating Officer, Sub-Inspector Ajay Kumar, Police Station Khyala.4. It is stated that the afores...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Than Singh Sharma Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:22. 09.2014 Pronounced on:14. 10.2014 + W.P.(C) 7284/2011 DR. THAN SINGH SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Amita Kalkal Chaudhary and Ms. Aditi Gupta, Advocates. Versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Noornisha, Advocate, for Resp. No.5. Sh. S.K. Gupta, Advocate, for Resp. Nos. 8 and 10. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. This Petition challenges an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 14.07.2010 in OA10222010. The CAT allowed the claim of the applicants there (hereafter private respondents), that they were entitled to seniority over the Petitioners, in the cadre of Divisional Officer, Delhi Fire Service.2. The question involved for decision by the Court is whether the benefit of seniority can be given where retrospective promotion on notional basis is given to an official. The private respondents W.P.(C) 7...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Vs. the State and anr
Court: Delhi
$~5 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 3898/2014 JAGDISH Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Karam Hussain, Advocate with petitioner in person versus THE STATE & ANR Through: ..... Respondents Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP for State with SI Roshan Lal, PS Nangloi Mr. S.D. Pushkar, Adv. for R-2 with R-2 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(ORAL) CRL.M.A. 13331/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed off. CRL.M.C. 3898/2014 1. This petition has been moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No.629/2007 registered under Section 498A/406/34 IPC on 04.08.2007 at Police Station Nangloi on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.2. Issue notice.3. Counsel for the State, as well as counsel for the second respondent/complainant, Seema, enter appearance and accept notice. The complainant, as well as the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash Kathuria and ors. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:14. 10.2014 W.P.(C) 4519/2014 & CM89982014 SUBHASH KATHURIA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Mr Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr Gaurav Gupta. For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi for LAC/L&B. Mr Arjun Pant for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. Mr Jain states that the counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 (Land Acquisition Collector) vide Diary No.194872 on 13.10.2014. The Registry is directed to place the same on record. We have, however, been handed over a copy of the said counter affidavit which is placed in the main file and we have examined the same.2. By way of this writ petition the petitioners are seeking the benefit of section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation a...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Chandra Shekhar Sahukar Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:30. 07.2014 Pronounced on:14. 10.2014 + W.P.(C) 2780/2011 DR. CHANDRA SHEKHAR SAHUKAR .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Rekha Palli and Ms. Punam Singh, Advocates. Versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondents Through: Sh. Sanjay Jain, ASG along with Sh. Amit Chaddha, Ms. Ruchi Jain and Ms. Nor Anand, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The petitioner, in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questions orders dated 09.09.2009 and 05.05.2010 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereafter the CAT), in O.A. No.242/2009 and R.A. No.120/2010 (in O.A. No.242/2009). The CAT rejected his claim for application of the Dynamic Assured Career Progression mechanism (hereafter DACP) to Veterinary Officers on the basis that the Central Pay Commission (hereafter CPC) recommended the same for only General Duty Medical Officers (hereafter GDMOs) a...
Tag this Judgment!Manish Muggal Vs. State and anr
Court: Delhi
$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3871/2014 MANISH MUGGAL Through: Mr. P.K. Jain, petitioner in person. ..... Petitioner Advocate with versus STATE & ANR Through: ..... Respondents Ms. Nishi Jain, APP for the State with SI Tribhuvan Negi, PS Dwarka. Ms. Harpreet Sukhramani, Advocate for R-2 with R-2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral) 1. This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.3/2012 registered under Section 498A IPC at Police Station Dwarka North, New Delhi on 4th January, 2012 on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.2. Issue notice. Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor and Ms. Harpreet Sukhramani, Advocate enter appearance and accept notice on behalf of the State and respondent No.2, respectively.3. Respondent No.2 is present in person. She is identified by her counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer.4. The aforesaid FIR i...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Wadhwa Vs. Intrend Cotton Pvt Ltd and ors
Court: Delhi
$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision :14h October, 2014 % + CS(OS) 891/2012 ANIL WADHWA .... Plaintiff Through : Mr. Abdhesh Chaudhary, Advocate versus INTREND COTTON PVT LTD & ORS Through : None ..... Defendants CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.(Oral) 1. Plaintiff has fled the present suit for recovery in the sum of Rs.41,25,752.83 together with pendente lite and future interest.2. Summons in the suit were issued in the suit on 09.04.2012. Counsel for the defendants entered appearance on 29.05.2012 and sought time to file written statement. Since written statement was not filed by the defendants within the prescribed period, the right of the defendants to file written statement was closed by an order dated 19.08.2013. None appeared on behalf of the defendants to carry out admission/denial of documents. Accordingly, the documents filed by the plaintiff were deemed to be admitted by an order dated 24.09.2013 and the plaintiff was directed ...
Tag this Judgment!