Delhi Court August 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 10 of about 306 results (0.020 seconds)Smt. Sangeeta Ashok Vs. Union of India Thr. Commissioner Kendriya Vidy ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:24. 07.2014 Pronounced on:20. 08.2014 + W.P.(C) 3488/2012 SMT. SANGEETA ASHOK ..... Petitioner Through : Sh. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate Versus UNION OF INDIA THR. COMMISSIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN ..... Respondent Through : Sh. S. Rajappa, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The petitioner questions the legality of an order dated 31-01- 2011 of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissing her application (OA No.3462/2009). She had approached the CAT against an order of dismissal issued by her employer, the respondent Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (hereafter "KVS").2. The petitioner was working, at the relevant time, as Lower Division Clerk ("LDC") in one of the KVS schools. A memorandum dated 22/23.12.87 leveling allegations of misconduct was issued to her. Three charges specifying the relevant facts were made; the...
Tag this Judgment!Gatx India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Arshiya Rail Infrastructure Limited and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:22. 05.2014 % + Judgment delivered on:20. 08.2014 O.M.P. 1132/2013 GATX INDIA PVT LD Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Pragya Ohri, Mr.Samar, Mr. Navin, Mr. Ranjit Prakash & Ms. Shubhi Sharma, Advocates. versus ARSHIYA RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. A.S.Chandhiok, Sr. Advocate with M/s Kirat Nagra, Pranav Vyas, Shankey Agrawal, Ritesh Kumar & Mayank Bamniyal, Advocates CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI JUDGMENT VIPIN SANGHI, J.1. This petition has been preferred under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act) by the petitioner to seek the following interim reliefs:(a) direct respondent No.1 to forthwith return the first rake to the petitioner in accordance with the terms of the Master Wagon Lease Agreement; 2. (b) direct respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 to pay the outstanding ...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Gupta and anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
$~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:20. h August, 2014 + W.P.(C) 7531/2013 M.K. GUPTA & ANR. Represented by: ..... Petitioners Mr.Sumit Sharma for Mr. M.K. Gupta, Advocate. Versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing Counsel for DDA. Mr.Pramod Ahuja and Mr. Ritesh Khatri, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioners are seeking mandamus directing the respondent DDA to demolish unauthorized and illegal construction which is being built on the east side of the house of the petitioners.2. Admittedly, demolition for the property forming part of Khasra No.48/7 is being sought in the present petition.3. Mr.Sumit Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that in para 19 of the judgment bearing RSA No.28/2001, titled as Smt. Subhadra & Another Vs. Delhi Development Authority, decided on 11.11.2010, this Cou...
Tag this Judgment!United Distributors Incorporation Vs. Union of India Andanr.
Court: Delhi
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:20. 08.2014 W.P.(C) 3708/ 2014 & CM No.7515/2014 UNITED DISTRIBUTORS INCORPORATION .... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA &ANR. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Virag Gupta. For the Respondents : Mr Vijay Chandra Jha with Ms Sonia Sharma, for R-2 (Custom ICD) Mr Mehmood Pracha, for FSSAI/R-3 CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 Belgium is known for its chocolates amongst other things. And, Guylian is a renowned brand of Belgium chocolates, which are sold in several countries. As coveted as these chocolates may be, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as the FSSAI) has found these chocolates to be non-compliant with the Food Safety Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Regulations made thereunder. The petitioner being aggrieved on account of non-clearance of these chocolates, has filed the presen...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Agarsen Institute of Technology Vs. Guru Govind Singh Indrapr ...
Court: Delhi
#43 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4727/2014 & CM APPL. 9400/2014 MAHARAJA AGARSEN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate with Mr. Laliet Kumar, Advocate versus GURU GOVIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVESITY & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr. Mukul Talwar, Advocate with Mr. Sradhananda Mohapatra and Mr. Vipin Singh, Advocates for GGSIU. Ms. Ferida Satarawala, Advocate for Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Ms. Mamta Tiwari, Advocate for Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate for AICTE. Date of Decision :20. h August, 2014 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking provisional affiliation and approval of additional division of B. Tech. (CSC) course with an intake of 60 students in the Academic Year 2014-15.2. Petitioners application for provisional affiliation of additional division of B. Tech. (CSC) for the Academic Year 2014-15 was rejected by respondent-University vide ...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Deep Chand
Court: Delhi
$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : August 20, 2014 + CRL.A. 695/2014 STATE Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Varun Goswami, APP Insp.Rakesh Kumar and ASI Pradeep Kumar, PS Aman Vihar versus DEEP CHAND Represented by: ..... Respondent Ms.Anu Narula, Advocate with Respondent in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Deep Chand (the respondent) and Arvind (a juvenile) were accused in FIR No.233/2010 PS Aman Vihar for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.2. We are not concerned with Arvind who was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board for trial.3. Vide decision dated October 03, 2012 Deep Chand has been acquitted.4. The State has been granted leave to appeal on May 28, 2014.5. It is urged by learned counsel for the State that the testimony of Sonu PW-1 and Anju Devi PW-2 would establish that the deceased Pandit Ji @ Pappu was seen in the company of Deep Chand and juvenil...
Tag this Judgment!Munni Devi Vs. Lokesh Kumar @ Lucky and ors
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: August 20, 2014 + CRL.A. 426/2014 MUNNI DEVI Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.C.S.Rathour, Advocate. versus LOKESH KUMAR @ LUCKY & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.R.S.Juneja, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) 1. Munni Devi, mother of Pramod Kumar challenges the impugned judgment dated December 20, 2013 acquitting the respondent No.1 Lokesh @ Lucky for the charges punishable under Sections 328/364/302/ 34/201/379/482 IPC. The appellant has also impleaded respondent No.2 Sandeep @ Katora however, it may be noted that a supplementary charge sheet was filed against Sandeep however, he was discharged by the learned Trial Court vide order dated April 20, 2011. The said order having not been challenged the present appeal against the respondent No.2 is not maintainable as he did not face the trial and is thus not acquitted. Thus this Court is requi...
Tag this Judgment!Brijesh Kumar Vs. Bimla Devi
Court: Delhi
$~23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision :20. h August, 2014 % + CS(OS) 2206/2013 BRIJESH KUMAR ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Ravinder Narwal, Adv. versus BIMLA DEVI ..... Defendant Through : Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.(Oral) 1. Present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 17.5.2013 and for permanent injunction.2. Summons in the suit and notice in the application were issued on 13.11.2013. Counsel for the defendant entered appearance on 13.3.2014 and sought four weeks time to file the written statement. Despite the matter being listed before the Joint Registrar on 4.7.2014 and 11.8.2014, written statement was not filed and consequently the right to file written statement was closed on 11.8.2014 by the Joint Registrar. Counsel for the plaintiff prays that a decree be passed against defendant under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC as despite time being granted to counsel fo...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and anr. Vs. Dr. S.D.Pradhan
Court: Delhi
17. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % Date of Decision:20. 08.2014 W.P.(C) 5066/2014 and C.M. Nos.10107-08/2014 UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Saqib, Advocate. versus DR. S.D. PRADHAN Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjay Parikh & Ms. N. Vidya, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI VIPIN SANGHI, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. The Union of India (UOI) has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the order dated 21.10.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (CAT/ Tribunal) in O.A. No.2250/2012, preferred by the respondent, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the respondent/ applicants claim for revision of his pension in terms of office memorandum dated 10.12.2009, and consequently, the Tribunal has quashed the order dated 08.05.2012 issued by the Government of India, whereby the respondents claim for upward revision of pension was...
Tag this Judgment!Rani Mishra Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~10 & 11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : August 20, 2014 + CRL.A. 1410/2013 UDEY KANT MISHRA Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Mukesh Kalia, Advocate with Mr.Bharat Kapoor and Mr.Karan Sachdeva, Advocates with Appellant in person versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP Insp.Rajesh Kumar Mishra, SHO and SI Mahender, Sultan Puri CRL.A. 187/2014 RANI MISHRA Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.R.K.Thakur, Advocate versus STATE & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP Insp.Rajesh Kumar Mishra, SHO and SI Mahender, Sultan Puri Mr.Mukesh Kalia, Advocate with Mr.Bharat Kapoor and Mr.Karan Sachdeva, Advocates for R-2 to R-4 with R-2 to R-4 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Rani Mishra, wife of Kamlesh Mishra is aggrieved by the fact that vide impugned decision dated October 04, 2013, the learned Trial Judge has acquitted Uday Kant ...
Tag this Judgment!