Delhi Court May 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.
Deepak Kumar Gupta Vs. University of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2015
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:20. 05.2015 W.P.(C) 8148/2014 & CM Nos. 18986/2014 & 3884/2015 DEEPAK KUMAR GUPTA ..... Petitioner versus UNIVERSITY OF DELHI ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Kamlesh Kr. Mishra. For the Respondent : Mr Mohinder J.S. Rupal. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J (ORAL) 1. At the outset the learned counsel for the petitioner sought further time to file a rejoinder. He submitted that it was necessary to file a rejoinder to produce exchange of communications which would indicate that Prof. A.K Singh, Provost Gwyer Hall, was inimical to the petitioner and the decision to refuse re-admission to the hostel was malafide.2. The petition was listed for the first time on 24.11.2014. On that date, respondent accepted notice and was granted two weeks time to file a counter affidavit; petitioner was granted liberty to file a rejoinder before the next date of hearing ...
Smt. Dipti Srivastava Vs. The Chairman Cum Managing Director,
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.5958/2002 20th May, 2015 % SMT. DIPTI SRIVASTAVA Through ..... Petitioner None versus THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDIAN AIRLINES & ORS. Through ..... Respondents Mr.Rohit K.Aggarwal with Ms.Rekha Dwivedi, Advocates. 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 petitioner, in effect, seeks her appointment and promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Air Hostess (redesignated as Assistant Manager, Inflight Services) by questioning the selection process initiated by the employer/respondent nos. 1 to 5 in terms of the selection process of the year 2002 notice dated 05.8.2002. The petitioner was not selected by the Selection Committee, and instead respondent nos.6 to 22 were selected and whose appointments are also questioned in this writ petition.2. In law, a person has only a right to...
Rohit Tyagi Vs. Late Shri Brijesh Sood and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2015
#40 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1115/2015 & I.As. 8406-8408/2015 ROHIT TYAGI Through ..... Plaintiff Mr. Manish Pratap Singh, Advocate. versus LATE SHRI BRIJESH SOOD AND ORS. ..... Defendants Through Mr. Atulay Nehra, Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocates Date of Decision :20. h May, 2015 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. Present suit has been filed for specific performance, damages as well as mandatory and permanent injunction. The admitted position is that defendant nos. 1 to 3 are the joint owners of second and third floors of M-16, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi-110048 (hereinafter referred to as suit property).2. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement dated 21st August, 2009 with defendant nos. 1 and 3 with regard to suit property for a period of nine years, w.e.f. 15th December, 2009 at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,50,000/- for first three months and thereafter for three years...
Smt. Lado Vs. Nannu Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 283/2014 Reserved on:23. d April, 2015 Decided on:20. h May, 2015 % SMT. LADO Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. S.K. Bhaduri and Ms. Kirti Parmar, Advocates. versus NANNU RAM Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Baljeet Singh, Advocate with Respondent in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 Aggrieved by the order dated 2nd August, 2014 whereby leave to defend was granted to the Respondent Nannu Ram in an eviction petition filed by the Petitioner Smt. Lado under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Act, 1958 (in short the DRC Act), the Petitioner prefers the present petition.2. In the eviction petition Smt. Lado stated that she was the owner and landlord of Shop measuring 8 x 12 situated in property bearing No.G-85, Aruna Nagar, Majnu Ka Tilla, Delhi. The suit property originally belonged to her mother-in-law Smt. Parvati who executed a Will dated 30th July, 2008 whereby she bequeathed the entire ground floor and two shops on the ground fl...
P.K. Mohandas and Ors Vs. Union of India and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C) No.5751/2002 20th May, 2015 P.K. MOHANDAS & ORS Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. Harish Sharma and Mr. B.K.Saini, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Mr. Waize Ali Noor and Ms. Prerna Shah Deo, Advocates for R-1. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the erstwhile employees of the respondent no.2/Company, and which petitioners have already retired after taking the Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) benefits.2. A similar petition claiming similar reliefs was W.P.(C) No.705/1998 and this writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 2.7.2013. Even the review petition filed being Review Petition No.436/2013 was dismissed on 6.9.2013. These judgments dated 2.7.2013 and 6.9.2013 read as under: Judgment dated 2.7.2013:1. No one is pre...
Smt. Kamlesh Gopal Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.5661/2002 20th May, 2015 % SMT. KAMLESH GOPAL Through: ..... Petitioner None. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Ms. Latika Chaudhary, Adv. for Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. for R-1 to 3. 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 who was an employee of respondent no.4/School seeks the following reliefs:26. That the petitioner respectfully prays that this Honble Court be pleased to:i) issue a writ of mandamous or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent no.1 to 3 to enforce the provision of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 viz. a viz. the respondents no.4 and 5 and on the failure of respondents no.4 and 5 to follow the provisions of the said Act to take action against the respondents no.4 and 5 as per the provisions of Delhi Education Act, 1973. ii)...
Madhu Manak Tala Vs. Bhim Sen
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2015
$ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:20. h May, 2015 % + RC.REV. 256/2015 and CM No.9430/2015 (Stay) SMT MADHU MANAK TALA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Purushottam Kumar, Advocate. versus SH MOHD HANIF Through: + ..... Respondent None. RC.REV. 259/2015 and CM No.9442/2015 (Stay) MADHU MANAK TALA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Purushottam Kumar, Advocate. versus BHIM SEN ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J (ORAL) 1. The two petitions are being taken up together for the reason in the two eviction petitions under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the DRC Act) filed by the Petitioner Smt. Madhu Manak Tala, the two Respondents, that is Mohd. Hanif and Bhim Sen were granted leave to defend vide the impugned orders dated 13th April, 2015.2. Mohd. Hanif and Bhim Sen are tenants in respect of private shop Nos. 8 and 2 respectively in the property bearing No.106, Ground Floor, Malviya Nagar, New Del...
Mohd. Sharif Vs. State and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2015
$~37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: May 20, 2015 + CRL.M.C.2153/2015 MOHD. SHARIF ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate versus STATE & ANR. Through: .... Respondents Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with SI Mehrab Alam PS Khajuri Khas Respondent No.2-in-person CORAM: HON' BLE MR. J USTICE SUNIL GAUR J UDGMENT (ORAL) % Quashing of FIR No.109/2012 under Sections 498-A/323/341/34 of IPC registered at Police Station Khajuri Khas, Delhi is sought on the ground that petitioner-husband and respondent No.2-wife are happily living together for the last two years. Notice. Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court, is complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question and she has been identified to be so by SI Mehrab Alam on the basis of identity Crl.M.C.No.2153/2015 Page 1 proof produced by her. Respondent No.2, presen...
Capt. a.K. Dewan Vs. Union of India and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.6052/2002 20th May, 2015 % CAPT. A.K. DEWAN Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Advocate. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Rohit K. Aggarwal, Advocate with Ms. Rekha Divedi, Advocate. 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 Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner who was an Executive Pilot with the respondent no.2/Indian Airlines Limited, seeks two reliefs. First relief which is sought is that the petitioner claims that he should be paid executive allowance in terms of the circular of the respondent no.2 dated 15.4.1997. Petitioner claims that this executive allowance has to be paid to him in addition to the productivity allowance which was being paid to him in terms of the extant circular of the respondent no.2 dated 10.10.1996. The second relief prayed by the petitioner is t...
Gajender Sagar and Ors. Vs. Smt Rajni and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2015
I-31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: May 20, 2015 + CRL.M.C. 2141/2015 GAJENDER SAGAR & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. K.N. Jha, Advocate versus SMT RAJNI & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Mukesh Kalia, Advocate with respondent No.1 in person. Mr. Karan Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState with WSI Uma Dutt CORAM: HON' BLE MR. J USTICE SUNIL GAUR J UDGMENT (ORAL) % Quashing of FIR No.227/2011, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at police station Mangolpuri, Delhi is sought on ground that petitioner-husband and respondent No.2-wife are happily living together for the last three years. Notice. Mr. Karan Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State accepts notice and Mr. Mukesh Kalia, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState submits Crl.M.C.No.2141/2015 Page 1 that respondent No.1, present in the Court, is complainant/first-info...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »