Delhi Court March 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.
Yadunath Singh Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
I-21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7298/2012 YADUNATH SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Ms.Rekha Palli, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr. Amrit Pal Singh, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA ORDER : VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J.(ORAL) (1) This writ petition is filed by one Yadunath Singh seeking benefit of promotion to the post of Law Officer, Grade-I. Promotion to the post of Law Officer, Grade-I is sought on the basis of the recommendation of the DPC dated 12 th January, 2010. As per the Petitioner, DPC granted him promotion to the post of Law Officer, Grade-I subject to obtaining the necessary relaxation in terms of the Memorandum dated 25.03.1996 of Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT). (2) The facts of the case are that Petitioner was employed by the Border Security Force on 7.9.1970 as H.C. (DE). Petitioner was promoted as a Sub-Inspector on 30.10.1980. Petitioner was appointed as a Law ...
Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, Delhi Vs. M/S. Sree Leathers, New Delhi
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
S.C. Jain, Member 1). This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dt. 10.03.2011 passed in Complaint Case No. 1755/2009 by the District Forum VI, New Delhi. 2). The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchase a pair of black leather shoes (size-7) on 16.10.2009 from the respondent/OP vide their bill No. 9681 for an amount of Rs. 749/-, this amount of Rs. 749 was paid by the appellant/complainant in cash to the respondent/OP. The respondent/OP gave a warranty of six months, in case the said pair of shoes developed any defect. On 20.10.2009 when the appellant/complainant wore the said pair of shoes for the first time, he found the stitching of both the shoes opened and shoes were not in a position for use. The appellant/complainant submitted that he had thoroughly seen the shoes before the purchase at the showroom of respondent which were perfectly alright, but it appeared that while packing the shoes after trial, the respondent/OP changed the pair of the ...
Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi Vs. M/S. Sree Leathers
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
S.C. Jain, Member: 1) This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dt. 10.03.2011 passed in Complaint Case No. 1755/2009 by the District Forum VI, New Delhi. 2) The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchase a pair of black leather shoes (size-7) on 16.10.2009 from the respondent/OP vide their bill No. 9681 for an amount of Rs. 749/-, this amount of Rs. 749 was paid by the appellant/complainant in cash to the respondent/OP. The respondent/OP gave a warranty of six months, in case the said pair of shoes developed any defect. On 20.10.2009 when the appellant/complainant wore the said pair of shoes for the first time, he found the stitching of both the shoes opened and shoes were not in a position for use. The appellant/complainant submitted that he had thoroughly seen the shoes before the purchase at the showroom of respondent which were perfectly alright, but it appeared that while packing the shoes after trial, the respondent/OP changed the pair of the s...
Raj Kumar and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, New Delhi
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
Raj Vir Sharma, Member(J). 1. In this Original Application, the applicants have prayed for the following relief: (i). Quash letter dt.20.2.2013 (Annexure A-1) and letter dt.20.2.2013 (Annexure A-2); direct the respondent to hold promotions as per letter dt.14.8.2012 (Annexure P-3.) 2. Brief facts of applicants case run thus: Applicants, belonging to General Category, were initially engaged by the respondent-DTC as Conductors on daily wage basis in March and June 1982 and were brought on to monthly rates of pay in September and December 1982. They are presently working as Conductor in D.T.C.(respondent). The Manager (Personnel), D.T.C., vide O.M. No.PLD-III/280/281)/2012/2491, dated 14.8.2012 (Annexure A-3) requested the concerned Unit Officers, under whom Conductors and Drivers were working, to send Service Books and ACR files for the years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 of Conductors, belonging to General Category and Scheduled Caste, who were brought on monthly rates of pay on or befo...
Chandra Bhan Yadava, Allahabad, Up. Vs. Union of India Through Its Sec ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
Ashok Kumar, Member (A) 1. The applicant has filed this TA on the ground that the Respondent No.3 has arbitrarily fixed age limit of 25 years for dependent children of CGHS Card Holders for availing medical facilities under CGHS and Central Services (Medical) Attendance Rules, 1944 and the alleged illegal and unlawful denial of continuance of CGHS facilities to the son of applicant after his transplantation of kidney. 2. Briefly, the applicant is working as Senior Accounts Officer in the Office of the PCDA (Pension) Allahabad under Ministry of Defence and is beneficiary of CGHS. His son is also a beneficiary and is covered under the scheme because of the applicant holding CGHS Card. His son suffered from chronic kidney problem and both his kidneys failed. He underwent kidney-transplantation on 30.1.2010 at Apollo Hospital, New Delhi and the expenses of the transplantation and post operative treatment continued upto 20.07.2010 as a CGHS beneficiary. In the meanwhile, the respondent CGHS...
NitIn Puri Vs. Pooja Puri
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : March 27, 2014 + CS(OS) 2234/2011 NITIN PURI ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Pradeep Norula, Adv. versus POOJA PURI ..... Defendant Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.(Oral) 1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, who is his wife, from visiting the office premises of the plaintiff situated at U321 Rear Side, Ground Floor, Chirag Dilli, New Delhi.2. Summons in the suit and notice in the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC were issued on 13.09.2011 and on the same day an ex parte ad interim injunction was also granted in favour of the plaintiff whereby the defendant was restrained from visiting the office of the plaintiff situated at U-321, Rear Side, Ground Floor, Chirag Dilli, New Delhi. Counsel for the defendant entered appearance on 17.10.2011 and sought time to file written statement and reply to the applicati...
Daljeet Singh Anand Vs. Harjinder Singh Anand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
$~ 50. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 482/2006 % Judgment dated 27.03.2014 DALJEET SINGH ANAND ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.G.P. Thareja, Advocate along with plaintiff. versus HARJINDER SINGH ANAND ..... Defendant Through: Mr.Peeyush Kalra and Mr.Sundhindra Tripathi, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) CS(OS)No.482/2006 1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for partition. Evidence stands concluded by the parties. As per the plaint, plaintiff and defendant are sons of Sh.Kulwant Singh Anand and are joint owners of the property bearing No.B-1/37, Ashok Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). Plaintiff and defendant are in joint possession of the suit property. It is also the case of the plaintiff that they (plaintiff and defendant) are joint owners (50% share each) by virtue of a conveyance deed dated 15.5.1996 executed in their favour and duly registered with the office of Sub-Registrar, Delhi.2. The...
Sanjay Bhatia Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. No.623/2014 Date of decision:26. h March, 2014 SANJAY BHATIA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Vijay Aggarwal & Mr. Mudit Jain, Advocates. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr. Yogesh Verma, APP for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH VED PRAKASH VAISH, J.(ORAL) 1. By way of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `Cr.P.C.), the petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 1.2.2014 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi whereby the application under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was dismissed.2. On 23.10.2013, the complainant Prem Sagar Sachdeva lodged a complaint on the basis of which FIR No.385/2013 under Sections 406/420 & 120B IPC was registered at P.S. Kirti Nagar, Delhi. On 29.11.2013, the petitioner Sanjay Bhatia was arrested. The petitioner was produced before the concerned Metropolita...
Edward Chukwudile Vs. Customs
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:26. 03.2014 + CRL.A. 999/2010 AKABUOGU GODWINN OJIMBA ..... Appellant Through: Mr Dharmender Bhau, Adv versus CUSTOM + ..... Respondent Through: Mr Satish Aggarwala, Adv CRL.A. 1355/2010 OBI BASIL CHUKS ..... Appellant Through: Mr Yogesh Kr. Saxena, Mr Yogesh Mehta and Mr Tushar Oberio, Advs. versus CUSTOMS + ..... Respondent Through: Mr Satish Aggarwala, Adv CRL.A. 1238/2010 EDWARD CHUKWUDILE ..... Appellant Through: Mr Yogesh Kr. Saxena, Mr Yogesh Mehta and Mr Tushar Oberio, Advs. versus CUSTOMS ..... Respondent Through: Mr Satish Aggarwala, Adv CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN JUDGEMENT V.K. JAIN, J.(ORAL) The case of the complainant/respondent in nutshell is as follows:The appellants before this Court arrived from Kabul by flight No.KB-44 at about 4.50 PM on 13.09.2005. When they were in the transit area to catch flight No.ET0629at about 6.30 PM on that date, the Complainant Surinder Pal Singh, Inspector (Customs) inter...
Goutam Bhadra and anr. Vs. Gouri Bhadra and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: March 26, 2014 + RFA (OS) 68/2014 GOUTAM BHADRA & ANR. .....Appellants Represented by: Mr.Rajesh Sharda, Advocate versus GOURI BHADRA & ANR. Represented by: .....Respondents None CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants we find no case made out to even issue a notice in the appeal which lays a challenge to an order dated February 19, 2014 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CS (OS) No.1525/2012 passing a preliminary decree declaring the respondents and appellant No.1 to be having 1/3 rd share each in property No.D-690, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi.2. Late Sh.Prosun Kanti Bhadra was the owner of property No.D-690, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi. He died intestate on June 21, 2003. He was survived by his wife Ms.Gouri Bhadra, daughter Ms.Swapna and son Sh.Goutam Bhadra.3. The mother and the daughter sue...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »