Delhi Court March 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.
Mr. L.N. Khemka and Ors. Vs. Ifci Limited and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.1803/2001 11th March, 2015 % MR. L.N. KHEMKA AND ORS. Through: ..... Petitioners None. versus IFCI LIMITED AND ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Dinkar Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are employees of the respondent no.1/IFCI Limited, impugn the action of the respondent no.1 in issuing the impugned H.R. Circular no.32/2000 dated 14.12.2000 whereby the retirement age was reduced from 60 years to 58 years. Earlier, the retirement age was enhanced to 60 years from 58 years in terms of the memorandum no.21/98-99 dated 27.5.1998.2. The simple issue in this case is whether an employer can reduce the retirement age from 60 years to 58 years.3. With...
Food Corporation of India, Dirba, Sangrur (Pb) Vs. Regional Provident ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:19. h February, 2015 Date of Decision:11. h March, 2015 % + W.P.(C) 7182/2013 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, DIRBA, SANGRUR (PB) ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. versus REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, BATHINDA (PB) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. D. Rajeshwar Rao, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH JUDGMENT1 By way of present petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 21.12.2012 passed by learned Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, EPF Appellate Tribunal) in ATA No.523(11) 2008.2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for the EPF Code number and the respondent allotted the PF Code No.12603 to it. The petitioner had since been paying its provident fund dues regularly and punctually in respect of its employees. The enforcement officer vide its inspection report dated 09.12.1996 confirmed about inspection of the...
Sunita Ranga Vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C) No.3072/2014 11th March, 2015 SUNITA RANGA Through: ..... Petitioner Ms.Sumati Jumrani, Advocate. versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Jagat Arora, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner, an employee of the respondent no.1/Punjab National Bank seeks quashing of the letter dated 06.5.2014 holding the petitioner ineligible for promotion to the post of MMG Scale-II from the post of JMG Scale-I. The only ground of lack of eligibility of the petitioner as argued before this Court and so stated in the counter-affidavit, is that the petitioner was required to have 21 months work experience in the post of JMG Scale-I, but she was short by 3 days because the petitioner had experience only of 20 months and 27 days. The relevant averments in the coun...
Sh. N.Jagannathan Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C) No.2146/2001 11th March, 2015 SH. N.JAGANNATHAN ..... Petitioner Through: None. versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Through: ..... Respondent Mr.Jagat Arora, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constituion of India, the petitioner, an erstwhile employee of the Punjab National Bank/Respondent, seeks the relief of granting to him the pension by the respondent/Bank under the P.N.B. (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 1995 Pension Regulations). The petitioner also prays for quashing of the communications dated 19.9.2000 and 10.2.2001 of the respondent/Bank denying pension to the petitioner.2. The case of the petitioner is that he resigned from the services of the respondent/Bank in terms of his letter dated 15.3.1995 due to personal and family circumstances, and which letter ...
Alstom India Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2015
$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2344/2015 ALSTOM INDIA LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sujit Ghosh, Ms. Kanupriya Bhargava and Ms. Pragya Awasthi, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC with Mr. Ajay Kalra, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER ORDER % 11.03.2015 CM No.4201/2015 and 4202/2015 (Exemption) 1. Allowed subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 2344/2015 and CM No.4200/2015 (stay) 2. Issue notice to the respondents.3. Mr. Narula accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Mr. Narula says that he will argue the matter based on the material placed on the record.4. This is a second round of litigation for the petitioner. The petitioner had approached this court earlier by way of a writ petition, which was numbered as : WP(C) 1331/2015. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 11.02.2015. 4.1 After alluding to the facts arising in the case, an operative direction was issued to ...
D.D. Gears Limited Vs. Labour Commissioner Cum Secretary (Labour) and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.3069/2001 % Judgement reserved on:21. 01.2015 Judgement pronounced on:11. 03.2015 D.D. GEARS LIMITED Through: ..... Petitioner Mr.Lalit Bhasin, Advocate alongwith Ms.Ratna D.Dhingra and Ms.Bhawna Dhami, Advocates. versus LABOUR COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY (LABOUR) & ANOTHER ..... Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA JUDGMENT1 Vide this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.12.2000 of Labour Commissioner-Cum-Secretary (Labour) whereby the their application dated 18.10.2000, seeking permission for closing down the industrial establishment, was rejected.2. The petitioner vide its application dated 18.10.2000 had applied for closing down the undertaking at A-34, G.T.Karnal Road Industrial Area with effect from 18.01.2001 for several reasons. In the application they had disclosed that about 336 workers were in their service and undertook to pay Section (8) of Section 25-O. The closu...
the Commissioner of Income Tax-Ii Vs. M/S Jansampark Advertising and M ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: February 19, 2015 Pronounced on: March 11, 2015 + ITA5252014 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus M/S JANSAMPARK ADVERTISING AND MARKETING (P) LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. R.M. Sinha, Mr. Rajiv Saxena, Mr. Shashwat Bajpai, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA % 1. This appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 assails the order dated 14.06.2013 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ITAT) in appeal No.4839/Del/2009 respecting the respondent (the assessee) for the assessment year (AY) 2004-05. The following substantial question of law was framed by order dated 25.11.2014:2.1 Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case ld. ITAT was correct in allowing the appeal of the assessee in regard to addition of 71,00,000/- on account of unexplained cr...
Sambhav Khanna Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:11. h March, 2015 + BAIL APPLN. 1835/2014 SAMBHAV KHANNA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Vipin Sanduja, Adv. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Ritu Gauba, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State alongwith Inspector Joginder Singh Police Station Patel Nagar. Mr S.K. Grover, Adv. alongwith complainant in person. % CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. By virtue of this application under Section 438 of Cr.PC the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.524/2014 under Sections 406/420 IPC registered at Police Station Patel Nagar, Delhi.2. The FIR in the instant case was registered on the basis of a complaint made by Sh. R.N. Chawla, Mr.Vineet and Mr Rakesh Sachdeva, Directors of M/s RVR Hospitality Pvt. Ltd alleging therein that the petitioner/accused Sambhav Khanna who was working as HR Marketing with M/s Tech Mahindra approached and persuaded the complainant compan...
Jaydeep Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2015
$~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : March 11, 2015 + W.P.(C) 2371/2015 JAYDEEP SINGH Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.J.S.Mann, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Vikas Mahajan, CGSC with Mr.Rohan Gupta, Advocate Col.R.S.Kapani CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) CM No.4261/2015 Allowed subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) No.2371/2015 1. Learned counsel who appears for the respondents states that the writ petition may be disposed of requiring the respondents to look into the grievance of the petitioner and take a decision. If the same is in favour of the petitioner, he would be enrolled as a SOL Clerk, subject to fitness and eligibility being determined under the Relationship Category. If the decision is against the petitioner, it would be conveyed to him with reasons.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner consents.3. The undisputed position is...
Sudhir Paswan Vs. The State (Govt. of Nct), Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :5. h MARCH, 2015 DECIDED ON :11. h MARCH, 2015 + CRL.A. 1451/2014 SUDHIR PASWAN Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Chetan Lokur, Advocate. VERSUS THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT), DELHI Through : ..... Respondent Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Aggrieved by a judgment dated 02.07.2014 in Sessions Case No.22/2012 emanating from FIR No.346/2011 PS Burari by which the appellant Sudhir Paswan was held guilty for committing offences under Sections 363/366/376 IPC, the instant appeal has been preferred by him By an order dated 02.07.2014, the appellant was awarded RI for ten years with fine ` 5,000/- under Section 376 IPC and RI for seven years with fine `5,000/- under Section 366 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge- sheet was that on 05.11.2011 at about 03.00 P.M., the appellant kidnapped prosecutrix X (assumed name) from the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- Next ›
- Last »