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.
J.L. Sarna Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2015
$~83 * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:10. 03.2015 + W.P.(C) 4965/2000 .... Petitioner J.L. SARNA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr N.S. Vasisht and Mr Vishal Singh, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr Jasmeet Singh, Advocate for UOI/R-1 Mr Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA/R-2 Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for R-3 & 4. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. The counter affidavit handed over by Mr Yeeshu Jain on behalf of Land Acquisition Collector is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit inasmuch as he would be relying on the averments contained in the writ petition.2. The petitioners seek the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013...
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: ..... ...
Shishupal Kumar Vs. Union of India and Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2015
$~ 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W. P.(Crl.) 304/2015 Date of Decision :10. h March, 2015 SHISHUPAL KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Pradeep Jain, Advocate, Mr. Shubhankar Jha, Advocate, Mr. Ashish Batra, Advocate, Mr. Ashish Bansal, Advocate and Mr. Tarun Chawla, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC with Mr. Siddharth Arora, Advocate and Mr. Ajay Kalra, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G. S. SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. Rule DB. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.2. Challenge in this writ petition is to the legality and validity of the detention order bearing No.F.No.673/08/2014-CUS VIII dated 25.07.2014 passed under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred as to COFEPOSA) against the detention of the petitioner for his a...
Union of India Vs. Girija Shankar Shukla
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2015
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + R.S.A. No.252/2008 & CM No.17912/2008 (stay) Decided on :10. h March, 2015 UNION OF INDIA Through ..... Appellant Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate versus GIRIJA SHANKAR SHUKLA ..... Respondent Through Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, Advocate CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) 1. This is the regular second appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 31st May, 2008 passed by the learned ADJ in RCA No.R5/2007 by virtue of which the appeal of the respondent was allowed and the order dated 14th November, 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge dismissing the suit filed by the respondent for declaration and permanent injunction was set aside.2. The only substantial question of law which has been framed by this Court on 20th May, 2013 is whether the finding of the first appellate Court setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court suffers from any perversity?. If so, what are its effects?.3. Before dealing with the...
Shri Shyam Sunder Oberoi and Ors. Vs. The District and Sessions Judge ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.7462/2000 10th March, 2015 % SHRI SHYAM SUNDER OBEROI & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Pramod Gupta, Advocate with Ms. Yogyata Verma, Advocate. versus THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Latika Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Harpreet Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 to 25. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who were Lower Division ClerksLDCs(Stenographers) with the respondent no.1/the District & Sessions Judge Delhi, impugn the order dated 17.11.2000 by which the private respondents have been given seniority above the petitioners. This seniority has been given to the private respondent nos. 3 to 25 (also Stenographers) by the private respondent nos. 3 to 25 being regular...
B.R. Arora and Associates (P) Ltd. Vs. Airport Authority of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI O.M.P. 520/2013 B.R. ARORA & ASSOCIATES (P) LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Anusuya Salwan with Mr. Vikas Sood, Advocates. versus AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. S.K. Chandwani and Mr. Sameer Chandwani, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER1003.2014 1. The challenge in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) by M/s B.R. Arora & Associates (P) Ltd. is to the Award dated 25th March 2013 passed by the sole Arbitrator in respect of the disputes between it and the Respondent, Airport Authority of India (AAI) arising of a contract for construction of Extension and strengthening runway and allied work" at the Maharana Pratap Airport, Udaipur.2. The estimated cost of the tender was Rs.3721.50 lakhs. The stipulated date of start was 26th March 2007 and the stipulated date of completion was 25th June 2008, i.e., 15 months after the date of start. It is not in dispute that extens...
P K S Bhatty Vs. Uoi and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : March 09, 2015 + W.P.(C) 2188/2015 P K S BHATTY Represented by: .....Petitioner Mr.S.S.Pandey, Advocate versus UOI & ORS. Represented by: .....Respondents Ms.Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr.T.P.Singh and Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocates for UOI with Col.N.K.Ohri CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. The petitioner who is due to superannuate on May 31, 2016, has as of today, one year, two months and twenty days service left.2. It is not disputed by the respondents that during this period the petitioner can avail leave for 160 days and would have a right to be sent to a place of his choice for 189 days where he would be receiving training of a kind he desires to enable him to find an avocation when he retires; for the Armed Forces have a benevolent policy under which its members are given training at resettlement courses so that they can gain employment post-supera...
Reserve Bank of India and Anr Vs. The Presiding officer and Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-2015
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:09. 03.2015 W.P.(C) 4974/2008 & CM No.9536/2008 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ANR .....Petitioners versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER & ANR ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Mr Sushil Dutt, Sr. Advocte with Mr K.S. Parihar and Mr H.S. Parihar. For the Respondents : Mr Pawan Bahl for R-2. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner impugns an order dated 19.02.2008 (hereafter the impugned order) passed by the Central Government, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-II (hereafter the Tribunal). By the impugned order, the Tribunal decided the issue with regard to fairness of domestic inquiry held by the petitioner in respect of charges framed against respondent no.2, as a preliminary issue; the Tribunal held that the inquiry was vitiated as the Inquiry Officer had relied on evidence of the complainant who had not been examined by respondent No.2 (hereafter the wo...
Sanjay Kumar Vs. Uoi and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : March 09, 2015 + W.P.(C) 6606/2013 SANJAY KUMAR Represented by: .....Petitioner Mr.V.K.Anand, Advocate with Mr.Suresh Kumar and Mr.Shekhar Aggarwal, Advocates versus UOI & ORS. Represented by: .....Respondents Ms.Abha Malhotra, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. The writ petitioner sought appointment under the Border Security Force and being successful was offered employment. The petitioner was required to fill up an enrollment form, which he did on August 17, 2010.2. Required to furnish information, as per Serial No.12 of the enrolment form, which sought the information : Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, imprisoned, bound over, interned, externed or otherwise dealt with under any law in force in India or outside?. If so, State particulars, the petitioner wrote : No. Meaning thereby, to the information : whether the petitioner had ever been...
S.Ravichandran and Ors. Vs. Uoi and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : March 09, 2015 + W.P.(C) 1419/2014 S.RAVICHANDRAN & ORS. .....Petitioners Represented by: Ms.Rekha Palli, Advocate with Ms.Garima Sachdeva and Ms.Punam Singh, Advocates versus UOI & ORS. Represented by: .....Respondents Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, (CGSC/UOI) with Mr.Rishi Kapoor and Ms.Apurva Varma, Advocates for R-1 to R-3 Mr.Ajay Digpaul, Advocate with Ms.Reshika, Advocate for R-4 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. It is settled law that a Government servant does not have a vested right to be promoted and that an amendment to a recruitment rule changing the existing rule of appointment by promotion can be altered by the employer keeping in view the requirements of the cadre. The question which arises for consideration in the instant writ petition is slightly different. Thus, we are not noting the decisions relied upon by the respondents which invoked the legal prin...
- ‹ Prev
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- Next ›
- Last »