Delhi Court November 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.
Col. T. P. Sharma Vs. Ram Dayal Sagar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: November 17, 2014 + W.P.(C) 7927/2014 COL. T. P. SHARMA Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr. Maroof Ahmad and Mr.Iftekhar Ahmad, Advocates with Petitioner in person. Versus RAM DAYAL SAGAR Represented by: ..... Respondent None. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) CM No.18563/2014 (for exemption) Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application is allowed. W.P.(C) 7927/2014 1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the award dated 18.12.2013 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in case bearing LIR No.158/2012, titled as Shri Ram Dayal Sagar Vs. Col. T.P. Sharma and Anr., whereby the learned Labour Court passed an award in favour of the respondent workman and against the petitioner Management.2. The issue before the learned Tribunal was as under:Whether the amount of Rs.5945/- deposited by the manageme...
M/S G.P.S Properties Pvt Ltd and anr Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corpora ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on:17. h November, 2014 + CS(OS) 814/2014 M/S G.P.S PROPERTIES PVT LTD & ANR Through: ..... Plaintiffs Mr. Rajat Malhotra, Adv. versus SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION& ANR ..... Defendants Through: Nemo. % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL G.P. MITTAL, J.1. This suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs seeking relief of declaration that the Assessment Order no.TAX/CIR/2013/453 dated 01.03.2013 passed by the Defendants and subsequent demand for payment on the basis of the Assessment Order as well as notice and warrant of attachment issued in pursuance thereof are illegal. The Plaintiffs further seek a decree of permanent injunction qua issuance of any such demand in future.2. On 24.03.2014, at the time of preliminary hearing of the suit, certain doubts were raised about the maintainability of the suit based upon the judgments in Srikant Kashinath Jituri v. Corporation of the City of Belgaum (1994) 6 SCC572and N.D.M.C. v. Satish Ch...
Hima Sood Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON:17. 11.2014 + W.P. (C) 7889/2014 ..... Petitioner HIMA SOOD Through: Mr. Aaditya Vijay Kumar, Advocate. versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Zubeda Begum, Standing Counsel for GNCTD, for Directorate of Education and DSSSB. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereafter referred to as CAT) dated 19.09.2014 which rejected her application - OA no.1752/2013. She had applied for the post of PGT (Biology) advertised by the Government of NCT of Delhi through the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereafter referred to as DSSSB) being advertisement no.2/2010; the number of posts advertised were 12. W.P.(C)7889/2014 Page 1 2. The relevant facts are that the essential qualification for the post of PGT is a masters degree in the subject concer...
Usha Rani Vs. Land Acquisition Collector (South) and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
61 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:17. 11.2014 W.P.(C) 4198/2014 & CM84902014 USHA RANI ..... Petitioner versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH) & ANR ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Deepak Khosla. For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi for LAC/L&B. Ms Mrinalini Sen Gupta and Ms Mrinmoi Chatterjee for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. By way of this writ petition the petitioner is seeking the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 2013 Act) which came into effect on 01.01.2014. The petitioner, consequently, seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 1894 Act) and in respect of which A...
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs. M/S Cimmco Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
$-26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + EFA(OS) 27/2014 Date of decision :17. h November, 2014 % MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Kalra, Advocate. versus M/S CIMMCO LIMITED Through: ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA GITA MITTAL, J.(Oral) CM187712014 (exemption) Allowed, subject to just exceptions. CM187702014 (delay) For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. This application is allowed. EFA(OS) 27/2014 and CM187692014 (stay) 1. It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the appellant that the record necessary for adjudication of the present appeal which is relied upon in support by the appellant has been filed. We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and also perused the available record.2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant primarily challenging the direction...
Jayanti Khanagwal Vs. Chatur Sain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: November 17, 2014 + RSA3432014 JAYANTI KHANAGWAL Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Yogesh Chhabra, Advocate versus CHATUR SAIN Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Anil Kathuria, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT ORAL % Caveat No.1009/2014 Respondent is represented through counsel. Caveat is discharged. C.M. No.18813/2014 (u/S151CPC) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA3432014 & C.M. No.18812/2014 (u/O XLI R5r/w Section 151 CPC) The concurrent findings returned by both the courts below are that the respondent-plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit premises. On admission, application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC has been allowed RSA No.343/2014 Page 1 by the trial court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court oblivious of the fact that there is already a restrain order in respect of the suit premises by the concerned Mahila Court. The facts of this case are already noted in the impugned judgment ...
Lufthansa German Airlines Vs. SudhIn Sarkar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: November 17, 2014 + W.P.(C) 3256/2013 LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Alok Bhasin and Ms.Poonam Das, Advocates. Versus SUDHIN SARKAR & ANR. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mrs. Mridula Ray Bhardwaj for Dr. Sumant Bhardwaj, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.W.P.(C) 3256/2013 1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the award dated 31.12.2012, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Karkardooma Courts Complex, Delhi, (in short the Tribunal), whereby a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- each has been directed to be paid in favour of the respondents No.1 and 2/workmen.2. Case of the petitioner Airlines as averred in the petition is that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were employed with the petitioner as Supervisors and were performing supervisory and managerial duties. Their services could be terminated by the petitioner in exercise of powers ...
Smt. Puran Devi Vs. Smt. Ram Pyari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: November 17, 2014 + RSA3442014 SMT. PURAN DEVI Through: ..... Appellant Mr. D.D. Sharma, Advocate versus SMT. RAM PYARI Through: ..... Respondents None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % Parties are the real sisters. Respondent-plaintiffs suit for partition stands decreed by the trial court and is also affirmed in appeal by the First Appellate Court. The factual background of this case already stands noticed in the impugned judgment and needs no reiteration. At the hearing, question of ownership of the suit property is raised by learned counsel for appellant by contending that suit property is a self acquired property of the appellant and that the house tax receipt on record is not sufficient to prove the ownership of the suit property. Thus, setting aside of the judgment of the courts below is sought in this appeal. Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned judgment and the material on record, I find t...
Mohd. Naseem and ors Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
62 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:17. 11.2014 W.P.(C) 4939/2014 & CM98872014 MOHD. NASEEM & ORS ..... Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Mr N.S.Vasisht, Mr Vishal Singh, Ms Jyoti Kataria and Mr M.P.Bhargava. For the Respondents : Mr Akshay Makhija, CGSC with Mr Rohitendra Deb and Ms Sanjugeeta Mokhtan for UOI. 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. The petitioners seek the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 2013 Act) which came into effect on 01.01.2014. A declaration is sought to the effect that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred ...
Smt.Santosh Kumari Vs. Smt. Sumitra Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.M.(M) No.540/2011 & C.M.No.9060/2011 (Stay) 17th November, 2014 % SMT.SANTOSH KUMARI Through: ......Petitioner Son of the petitioner in person. VERSUS SMT. SUMITRA DEVI & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The son of the petitioner appears in person and seeks adjournment. I refuse to grant an adjournment in the facts of the present case, and more so because this case has already come up for hearing since 06.5.2011 on over a dozen of hearings.2. The impugned order which is challenged in the present case is order dated 11.11.2010 which has dismissed an application seeking review of the order dated 11.5.2010. By the order dated 11.5.2010, the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for framing additional issues was dismissed.3. A reading of the impugned order dated 11.11.2010 shows that the petitioner/plaintiff is deliberately del...
- ‹ Prev
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- Next ›
- Last »