Delhi Court January 2015 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.
Bridge and Roof Company (India) Ltd. Executives?? Vs. M.K. Singh and O ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.1574/2014 6th January, 2015 % BRIDGE AND ROOF EXECUTIVESASSOCIATION Through: COMPANY (INDIA) LTD. ......Petitioner Ms. Maninder Acharya, Senior Advocate with Mr. Snehasish Mukherjee, Advocate. VERSUS M.K. SINGH AND ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Mr. Pankaj Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Harvinder Oberoi, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr. A.P. Dhamija, Advocate for respondent No.5. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the association of Executives of the respondent no.5-company M/s Bridge and Roof Company (India) Ltd. The petitioner Executives Association seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of quo warranto to question the contractual appointment period (or till further orders) of the respondent no.1, Mr. M. K. Singh as a...
Surender Singh Vs. Kala Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2015
5# $ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 89/2013 and CM No.1213/2013 (Stay) Decided on:6. h January, 2015 % SURENDER SINGH Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Advocate. versus KALA DEVI ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J (ORAL) 1. The present petition arises from the impugned judgment dated 18 th August, 2012 whereby the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner against the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller dated 30th March, 2012 allowing the eviction petition of the Respondent under Clause (a) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short DRC Act).2. The Respondent filed an application for recovery of possession of a shop in property bearing No.43/3A/1, East Azad Nagar, Krishna Nagar, Delhi (in short the premises) against the Petitioner on the ground mentioned in Clause (a) of the Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Sec...
a.R.Abdul Gaffar Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C) No.1927/1996 6th January, 2015 A.R.ABDUL GAFFAR ......Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajinder Wali, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner, erstwhile employee of National Book Trust, India (represented by respondent nos. 3 and 4 in the writ petition) impugning the order dated 15.4.1996 whereby the petitioner was prematurely/compulsorily retired in exercise of the powers under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules (FRSR). The provision of Rule 56(j) of FRSR is a provision entitling premature retirement in public interest by the employer. This Rule 56(j) of FRSR reads as under:56(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Appropriate Authority shall, if it is of the o...
Dharmender Singh Vs. Uoi and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2015
$~R-10 & 11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Decision: January 06, 2015 W.P.(C) 1964/2005 DHARMENDER SINGH Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Ashish Kumar, Advocate with Mr.R.K.Sharma, Advocate versus UOI & ANR. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate W.P.(C) 1965/2005 RAKESH KUMAR Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Ashish Kumar, Advocate with Mr.R.K.Sharma, Advocate versus UOI & ANR. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioners were employed as constables with the Border Security Force BSF and in the year 2003 were attached with the 32nd Bn. which was deployed at the Indo-Bangladesh Border. The two along with L/Nk. Humeshwar Patangia used to be deployed at the Border Outpost Fatehpur.2. Secret information was received by the Commandant of the Battalion that the petitioners and L/Nk. Humeshwar Patangi...
Jai Narain and Ors. Vs. The Collector (North West) and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2015
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: January 06, 2015 + W.P.(C) No.9128/2008 JAI NARAIN & ORS. Represented by: ..... Petitioners Mr.R.K.Gupta, Advocate. Versus THE COLLECTOR (NORTH WEST ) & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Standing Counsel with Mr. M.K. Vikkey, Advocate for Respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.Anil Kaushik and Mr. Pradeep K.B., Advocate for Respondents No.3 to 8. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.1. Vide the present petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the impugned order dated 12.12.2008 passed by the respondent No.1 in Case No.24/DC/NW/2005 and directions, thereby directing the respondents No.1 and 2 to allot Plot No.304 in favour of the petitioners.2. Brief facts of the case are that Scheme for consolidation of land of Village Khera Khurd was framed during the period 1973-75. In the year 1974, father of the petitioners No.1 and 3 to 7, namely, late Shri Ram Murti (to be referred as Predecessor-in...
Jaintia Highway Private Limited Vs. National Highway Authority of Indi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: November 27, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: January 06, 2015 % + FAO (OS) 489/2014 JAINTIA HIGHWAY PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Advocate and Mr.Kirti Uppal, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Rakesh Sinha, Mr.Sourav Ghosh and Mr.Samrat Sengupta, Advocates versus NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Pradeep K.Bakshi, Advocate with Ms.Prachi V.Sharma and Kushagra Pandit, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARDEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PARDEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Petition filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking a restraint order against the respondent to invoke Performance Bank Guarantee No.11640100001232 dated December 01, 2012 in sum of `19,58,00,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Crores Fifty Eight Lacs only) has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated November 19, 2014.2...
Ravi Saran Vs. The Cooperative Store Ltd., Super Bazar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2015
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: January 06, 2015 + W.P. (C) No.5907/2012 RAVI SARAN Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal, Advocate. Versus THE COOPERATIVE STORE LTD., SUPER BAZAR .... Respondent Represented by: Ms. Prerna Mehta, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.1. The present petition is directed against the award dated 03.09.2005 whereby ld. Industrial Adjudicator in I.D. No.754/2004 (Old I.D. No.318/1991) held that the termination of services of the petitioner was legal and justified and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.2. The present petition is also directed against the order dated 11.12.2002 passed by the ld. Industrial Adjudicator, whereby it was held that the enquiry conducted was legal, fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner joined the respondent Establishment as a Sweeper in the year 1966 and h...
Aman Gupta Vs. Ashok Kumar Sarna
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2015
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Cont. Cas (C) No.333/2014 Decided on :6. h January, 2015 AMAN GUPTA Through: Petitioner Mr. Rohit Krishan Naagpal, Advocate with petitioner in person. Versus Respondent ASHOK KUMAR SARNA Through: Mr. Manish Singh & Mr. Ajay Bansal, Advocates with respondent in person. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.1. This is a contempt petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent on account of the alleged wilful disobedience of the order passed by the court on 2.4.2013 by virtue of which the revision petition of the respondent was treated as disposed of by granting one years time to the respondent to vacate the premises till 3.4.2014.2. Briefly stated that facts of the case are that the present petitioner had filed an eviction petition against the respondent in respect ground floor of the shop bearing No.1565/30, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005. The respondent herein was using the said tenanted premises for the purpose of runni...
Bridge and Roof Company (India) Ltd. Executives?? Vs. M.K. Singh and O ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.1574/2014 6th January, 2015 % BRIDGE AND ROOF EXECUTIVESASSOCIATION Through: COMPANY (INDIA) LTD. ......Petitioner Ms. Maninder Acharya, Senior Advocate with Mr. Snehasish Mukherjee, Advocate. VERSUS M.K. SINGH AND ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Mr. Pankaj Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Harvinder Oberoi, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr. A.P. Dhamija, Advocate for respondent No.5. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the association of Executives of the respondent no.5-company M/s Bridge and Roof Company (India) Ltd. The petitioner Executives Association seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of quo warranto to question the contractual appointment period (or till further orders) of the respondent no.1, Mr. M. K. Singh as a...
the Additional Commissioner of Customs Vs. Shri Viney Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2015
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:06. 01.2015 W.P.(C) 8991/2014 THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ... Petitioner versus SHRI VINEY JAIN ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner For the Respondent : Mr Satish Kumar : Mr R. S. Sharma CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) CM205422014 Allowed subject to all just exceptions. WP(C) 8991/2014 & CM205412014 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 05.05.2014 passed by the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission, New Delhi on the application filed by the respondent under Section 127 B of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The main point urged by Mr Satish Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Additional Commissioner of Customs, is that the Settlement Commission did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the respondent inasmuch as the respondent did ...
- ‹ Prev
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- Next ›
- Last »