Delhi Court February 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.
Smt. Sunita Awasthi Vs. Smt. Savitri Awasthi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.184/2011 26th February, 2014 % SMT. SUNITA AWASTHI Through: ......Appellant Mr. P.S. Vats, Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Manish Vats, Advocate. VERSUS SMT. SAVITRI AWASTHI Through: ...... Respondent Mr. B.S. Randhawa, 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 judgment of the first appellate court dated 16.7.2011 by which the appeal filed by the appellant/defendant was dismissed.2. At the outset, it needs to be clarified that there are two judgments dated 16.7.2011. One judgment which is impugned in this appeal was passed in appeal against the final judgment and decree of the trial court dated 30.10.2009, and, the other judgment was passed dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant/defendant against the dismissal of her application under Order 9 Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC...
Nirmal Tower Building Occupants Welfare Society (R Vs. Nirmal Tower Bu ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:26. 02.2014 FAO(OS) 111/2014 NIRMAL TOWER BUILDING OCCUPANTS WELFARE SOCIETY (REGD.) ..... Appellant versus NIRMAL TOWER BUILDING PVT LTD & ANR ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Sudhanshu Batra, Sr. Advocate with Mr Anshuj Dhingra, Mr Anubhav Mehrotra and Mr Shailendra Singh. For the Respondents : Dr Manmohan Sharma and Mr Anurag Pratap. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, ACJ (ORAL) CAV2062014 The learned counsel for the caveator/respondent is present. The caveat stands discharged. FAO(OS) 111/2014 and CMs 3778-3780/2014 1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 29.01.2014 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court whereby the appellants suit [CS(OS) No.40/2005]. has been dismissed for non-prosecution. Along with the suit the interim order dated 13.01.2005 was vac...
Nand Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:- 26th February, 2014 + CRIMINAL APPEAL5621999 NAND LAL Through ..... Appellant Mr. Akshay Sapra, Advocate. versus STATE Through ..... Respondent Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J.Appellant Nand Lal by the impugned judgment dated 19 th April, 1999 has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) for murder of Rubi Kumar in the intervening night between 15th and 16th December, 1992 at A-260, Mukandpur Colony, Delhi. The conviction arises out of FIR No.486/1992, police station Samaipur Badli, which became subject matter of Session Case No.135/1994. The appellant was also charged under Section 376 IPC, but has been acquitted. State has not preferred any appeal against the said acquittal. By order of sentence dated 29th April, 1999, the appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-. In...
Sheel Kumar Goyal Vs. Surender Kumar Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.109/2011, CM Nos.12207/2011 & 4409/2013 26th February, 2014 % SHEEL KUMAR GOYAL ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Alok Kumar, Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain, Mr.Neeraj Gupta and Mr. Amit Kumar, Advs. versus SURENDER KUMAR SHARMA Through: ..... Respondent Ms.Prerna, Advocate CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff/landlord impugning the judgment of the first appellate court dated 16.08.2011 by which the first appellate court set aside the judgment of the trial court dated 12.10.2010. Trial court by the judgment dated 12.10.2010 had dismissed the suit for possession and recovery of rent filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondent/defendant on the ground that there was a landlord and tenant relationship which was governed under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and therefore...
Sathya Sai Medical College and Research Institute Vs. Union of India a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:26. 02.2014 LPA1742014 & CM Nos. 3416-17/2014 SATHYA SAI MEDICAL COLLEGE & RESEARCH INSTITUTE .... Appellant versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr Dhruv Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr Neeraj Shekhar : Mr Neeraj Chaudhari and Mr Ravjyot Singh, for UOI Mr T. Singhdev and Mohd. Ali, Advocates for MCI CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, ACJ (ORAL) 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.02.2014 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in W.P.(C) No.854/2014 whereby the appellants writ petition was dismissed. The appellant / petitioner had filed the said writ petition being aggrieved by the letter dated 15.01.2014 which had been issued by the Medical Council of India and had been sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Health & Famil...
Ms. Meena Rawat, Rohini Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Through ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) Following relief has been sought in this O.A.:- (a). Quash and set aside the letter dated 24.8.2011 passed by the respondent and direct the respondent to refund the amount of Rs.186257/- with interest to the applicant. (b) Direct the respondent to give the pay scale of Sr. Telephone Operator from September 2011 to till date as the applicant is continuously doing the job of Sr. Telephone Operator not the job of Telephone operator. (c) Direct the respondent to arrange the training for the applicant for the post of Sr. Telephone Operator and promote the applicant for the post of Sr. Telephone Operator from the year 1996 when the applicant was promoted to the post of Sr. Telephone Operator. (d) Award costs of the proceedings. 2. Facts of the case are that the applicant joined the respondents as Telephone Operator in 1988. On 22.11.1996, she was promoted on ad hoc basis as Senior Telephone Operator. One of the conditions mentioned in ad hoc promotion was that ...
Tanay Rana, Kaura Ps Jagdishpur, New Delhi and Others Vs. Union Public ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
Dr. B. K. Sinha, Memebr (A): 1. The short issue involved in this case is that whether the candidates who had appeared in CSE, 2011 have a right to seek selection in form of successive supplementary lists to the point that all the vacancies advertised are exhausted. 2. The facts of the case, briefly put, are that the applicants (6 in number) had admittedly appeared in the CSE, 2011. Further, admittedly a total number of 1001 vacancies were advertised on the basis of the CSE Rules. The Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as œUPSC?) declared the result in the first instance in respect of 910 candidates including 420 from General, 255 from OBC, 157 from SC and 78 from ST categories. This list included 33 PH candidates. This list also included 91 candidates [72 from OBC, 12 from SC and 07 from ST of reserved categories who have qualified on General Merit (hereinafter referred to GM)], who did not avail any concession/relaxation admissible to the reserved catego...
Simplex Infrastructure Ltd Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON:26. 02.2014 + W.P. (C) 4455/2013 CM APPL.10299/2013, 836/2014 SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sujit Ghosh with Ms. Kanupriya Bhargava, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. This writ petition impugns the legality of orders demanding the recovery of terminal excise duty (TED) of Rs. 12,26,55,979 earlier refunded to the petitioner, Simplex Infrastructure (Simplex).2. Simplex provides construction services, and has been awarded various civil works contracts. For the execution of these W.P.(C)4455/2013 Page 1 projects, Simplex procured construction goods from local manufacturers. The local manufacturers paid excise duty to the Revenue on the goods supplied to Simplex, and in turn, passed on the burden of the excuse duty to Simpl...
Const.Subhash Babu Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: February 04, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: February 25, 2014 + W.P.(C) 2727/2002 CONST.SUBHASH BABU Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate with Mr.Somnath Banerjee, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Richa Kapoor, Advocate with Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. The writ petitioner challenges the order dated June 15, 2001 dismissing the statutory petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated August 24, 2000 wherein the Summary Security Force Court held the petitioner guilty of the charges framed against him and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and dismissed him from service.2. The factual backdrop leading to the filing of the present petition is that after taking cognizance of the offence report under Rule 43 and hearing ...
Kaushal Kishor Rai and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: January 16, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: February 25, 2014 % + WP(C) 666/2001 KAUSHAL KISHOR RAI & ANR. ..... Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Shree Prakash Sinha, Mr.Nawalendra Kumar and Mr.Rakesh Mishra, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Dr.Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate with Mr.Vijaya Kumar Raut, Pairvi Officer, CRPF. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Petitioners Kaushal Kishore Rai and Birender Singh along with a third co-delinquent Bijender Singh faced a joint inquiry pursuant to a charge memo dated April 16, 1999 which reads as under:ARTICLE OF CHARGE-I That No 910710223 Const/Driver Bijendra Singh (under suspension) of N/S Reserve Pool CRPF New Delhi has committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the force u/s.11 (1) of CRPF Act 1949 in that he drove vehicle Regd.No.DL-1G-0839 (Tata Truck) unauthorise...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »