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.
R.K. Jain Vs. office of the Attorney General of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2015
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:10. 03.2015 W.P.(C) 1041/2013 SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL ..... Petitioner versus OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIA AND + ..... Respondent W.P.(C) 1665/2013 R.K. JAIN ..... Petitioner versus OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIA ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Mr Pranav Sachdeva and Mr Syed Musaib in W.P.(C) 1041/2013. Mr Rajveer Singh and Mr J.K. Mittal in W.P.(C) 1665/2013. For the Respondents : Mr Jasmeet Singh, CGSC with Ms Kritika Mehra for UOI in W.P.(C) 1041/2013. Mr Vikram Jetly, CGSC for UOI in W.P.(C) 1665/2013. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The point in issue in these petitions, is whether the Office of Attorney General of India is a public authority within the meaning of section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter the RTI Act)?.2. The petitioners impugn an order dated 10.12.2012 (hereinafter referred to as the impu...
Taj Television India Pvt Ltd Vs. Fastway Transmission India Pvt. Ltd. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2015
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:10. h March, 2015 % + LPA No.80/2015 & CM No.2778/2015 (for stay) TAJ TELEVISION INDIA PVT LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tejveer Singh Bhatia, Mr. Upender Thakur and Mr. Kapil Mishra, Advocates. Versus FASTWAY TRANSMISSION INDIA PVT. LTD.& ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Naveen Chawla with Mr. Ketan Paul, Mr. Anurag Sharma and Mr. G.S. Oberoi, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia Standing Counsel for R-2/UOI. CORAM :HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. This intra-court appeal impugns the judgment dated 5th February, 2015 of the learned Single Judge of this Court of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.1208/2015 preferred by the appellant.2. The said writ petition was filed impugning the interim order dated 29th January, 2015 of the Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) to the extent directing the appellant, a broadcaster of TV...
Shri Prabhudayal Batra Vs. M/S Shreyans Buildwell Pvt Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 391/2013 & CM Nos. 16760/2013, 21159/2014 Reserved on:23. d February, 2015 % Decided on:10. h March, 2015 SHRI PRABHUDAYAL BATRA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Pradeep Dewan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Anupam Dhingra, Advocate. versus M/S SHREYANS BUILDWELL PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Arjun Singh Bhati, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 Learned counsel for the Respondent at the outset submits that the Petitioner is not paying the user charges as directed by this Court and thus the interim order passed in favour of the Petitioner as fixed by this Court in terms of the decision of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd., 2005 (1) SCC705be vacated. Learned counsel for the Petitioner admits that the user charges as directed by this Court have not been paid. He however, states that he is ready to address arguments in the matter and thus arguments have been heard.2. Aggrieved by the order dated 25th Sep...
M.P.Nauriyal Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2015
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: March 10, 2015 + W.P.(C) 8045/2012 M.P.NAURIYAL Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.R.K.Saini, Advocate. Versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.1. Vide the present petition, petitioner has inter alia prayed as under:a) A Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the case for perusal; b) A Writ of Certiorari quashing the action of the respondent in not including the name of the petitioner in the draw held in February 2008 alongwith his contemporaries and then refusing to allot him a flat I the same area at the same cost, as a missing priority case, being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of the Rules, Regulations, Policy and the principles of equity, justice and good conscience; c) A writ of Mandamus commanding the respondent to immediately allot to the petitioner an LIG Flat, in the s...
Bhura Vs. The State Govt. of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2015
$~12. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % Date of Decision:10. 03.2015 BAIL APPLN. 463/2015 and Crl. M.A. No.3519/2015 BHURA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. M.M. Ansari, Advocate. versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Lovkesh Sawhney, APP along with SI Sahib Singh, PS Khajoori Khas. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI VIPIN SANGHI, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. This is the second bail application preferred by the petitioner the first one having been dismissed as withdrawn on 24.02.2015 by this Court being Bail Application No.368/2015. On being asked as to what is the changed circumstance for moving the present application, learned counsel for the petitioner has no explanation to offer. He has, however, made his submissions on merits to press the present bail application.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP.3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is in Judicial Custody (JC) fo...
Manohar Lal Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:10. h March, 2015 % + LPA No.874/2013 & CM No.18444/2013 (for stay) MANOHAR LAL Through: ....... Appellant Ms. Indrani Ghosh, Adv. Versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Bandana Shukla, Adv. for Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Puneet Mittal, Adv. for R-4 to 6,8,9&11. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. This intra court appeal impugns the judgment dated 9 th September, 2013 of the learned Single Judge of this Court of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.6456/2012 preferred by the appellant.2. When the appeal came up for admission on 18th March, 2014, counsel for the respondents No.1&2 i.e. the Administrator / Lt. Governor, Govt. of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) and the Director of Education, GNCTD appeared on advance notice and the counsel for the contesting private respondents No.4,5,6,8,9&11 i.e. (i) Delhi Public School Soc...
Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. office of the Attorney General of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2015
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:10. 03.2015 W.P.(C) 1041/2013 SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL ..... Petitioner versus OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIA AND + ..... Respondent W.P.(C) 1665/2013 R.K. JAIN ..... Petitioner versus OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIA ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Mr Pranav Sachdeva and Mr Syed Musaib in W.P.(C) 1041/2013. Mr Rajveer Singh and Mr J.K. Mittal in W.P.(C) 1665/2013. For the Respondents : Mr Jasmeet Singh, CGSC with Ms Kritika Mehra for UOI in W.P.(C) 1041/2013. Mr Vikram Jetly, CGSC for UOI in W.P.(C) 1665/2013. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The point in issue in these petitions, is whether the Office of Attorney General of India is a public authority within the meaning of section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter the RTI Act)?.2. The petitioners impugn an order dated 10.12.2012 (hereinafter referred to as the impu...
Reliance Broadcast Network Limited Vs. Broadcast Engineering and Consu ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on March 03, 2015 Judgment delivered on March 10, 2015 + O.M.P. 280/2012 RELIANCE BROADCAST NETWORK LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.K. Datta, Advocate with Mr.Ashish Verma and Mr.Rahul Malhotra, Advocates Versus BROADCAST ENGINEERING AND CONSULTANTS INDIA LTD AND ANOTHER ..... Respondent Through: + O.M.P. 273/2012 RADIO ONE LIMITED Through: Mr.Rajeev Sharma, Adv. & Mr.R.Gogna, CGSC along with Mr.Vipul, Ms.L.Gangmei, Ms.Tanisha, Advs. for Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (UOI) ..... Petitioner Mr.Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Kirat Singh Nagra and Mr.Kartik Yadav, Advocates Versus BROADCAST ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS INDIA LTD ..... Respondent Through: OMP2802012 & connected petitions Mr.Rajeev Sharma, Adv. with Ms.Radha Lakhmi R., Page 1 of 50 Adv. for R-1 Mr.R.Gogna, CGSC along with Mr.Vipul, Ms.L.Gangmei, Ms.Tanisha, Advs. for Ministry of Broadcasting (UOI) + O.M.P. 287/2012 MALAR PUBLICATIONS LTD Through: ..... ...
the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. The Chief Commissioner and Anr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.7844/2013 & CM Nos. 16648/2013 (stay) & 9014/2014 % 10th March, 2015 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Rahul Ranjan Verma, Adv. versus THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Ruchir Mishra, Adv. for R-1. Mr. V.M.Handa, Adv. for R-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, petitioner/employer questions the order passed by the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities dated 20.9.2013 whereby the Chief Commissioner passed the following directions:11. In the light of above, the respondent is directed to shift the complainant to some other post that carries the same pay scale and service benefits as the Development Officer (Marketing) which the complainant is holding at present, if he needed to be shifted. The complainant must not be shifte...
Naveen Chander Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2015
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: March 10, 2015 + CRL.M.C. 530/2015 & Crl.M.A.2063/2015 NAVEEN CHANDER Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. M.S. Jadhav, Advocate versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with SI Paramjeet Singh Dr. Sumant Bhardwaj and Ms. Mridula R. Bhardwaj, Advocates for respondent No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % Quashing of FIR No.40/2015 under Section 365 of IPC registered at P.S. Kapashera, Delhi is sought on merits in this petition. On the last date of hearing, respondent No.2, who is the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question, wished to have a brief interaction with his daughter-prosecutrix and the parties were sent for mediation so that cordiality can be restored amongst the parties and for that purpose, the parties had appeared before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre on 11th February, 2015 at...
- ‹ Prev
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- Next ›
- Last »