Delhi Court January 2017 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.
Shri Baidya Nath Yadav & Ors. Vs.guru Tegh Bahadur Polytechnic Institu ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
* + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) No.745/2017 & CM Nos. 3478-79/2017 27th January, 2017 SHRI BAIDYA NATH YADAV & ORS. Through: Mr. Advocates. ........ Petitioners Kumar, Nikhilesh versus GURU TEGH BAHADUR POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Gayatri Aryan, Advocate. 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 petitioners seeking reliefs of setting aside of the termination letters issued by the respondent no.1/Guru Tegh Bahadur Polytechnic Institute/employer terminating the services of the petitioner.2. Respondent no.2 is constituted because of the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1971. Respondent no.2 performs its functions under the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Act for running educational institutions and the employees of the educational institutions are therefore employees of the W.P.(C) No.745/2017 Page 1 ...
Arjun vs.the State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RESERVED ON :10. h JANUARY, 2017 DECIDED ON :27. h JANUARY, 2017 CRL.A.1015/2015 ..... Appellant Through : Mr.Harsh Prabhakar, Advocate with versus Mr.Harjeet Singh Sachdeva & Mr.Anirudh Tanwar, Advocates. ARJUN THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through : Ms.Meenakshi Dahiya, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant Arjun to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 05.06.2015 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.arising out of FIR No.5PS Shalimar Bagh whereby he was convicted for committing offences punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act (In short Act). By an order 06.06.2015, he was sentenced to undergo RI for five years with fine `5,000/-; default sentence being SI for six months.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up in the charge- sheet was that on 05.12.2013, at about 05.00 p.m., at House No.537, Gali No.5, Ambedkar Na...
Sunita Raju & Ors. Vs.union of India & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
$~8 and 9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9025/2015 SUNITA RAJU & ORS. Through Mr. A. K. Trivedi, Advocate Date of Decision :27. h January, 2017 ........ Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mrs. Bharathi Raju (CGSC) for R- 1/UOI Mr.Rajeev Sharma, Radha Krishna, T. Rajat Krishna and Pratishth Kaushal, Advocate for R-1 & R-4 + W.P.(C) 9031/2015 And NAGENDRA KUMAR RAI & ORS. Through Mr. A. K. Trivedi, Advocate ........ Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mrs. Bharathi Raju (CGSC) for R- 1/UOI Mr.Rajeev Sharma, Radha Krishna, T. Rajat Krishna and Pratishth Kaushal, Advocate for R-1 & R-4 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR WP(C) No.9025&9031/2015 Page 1 of 7 SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL) Subject matter of challenge in the aforementioned writ petitions is the common order dated 07.07.2015 of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the O.A. Nos....
Icici Bank Ltd vs.naushad Ali
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
$~A-51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:27. 01.2017 + CM(M) 96/2017 and CM No.3043/2017 ICICI BANK LTD NAUSHAD ALI Through versus Through ........ Petitioner Mr.Puneet K.Bhalla, Ms. Chetna Bhalla, Advs ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(Oral) CM No.3043/2017 (Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM(M) 96/2017 1. An advance copy of the petition has been sent to the respondent but none is present on behalf of the respondent.2. By the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 03.01.2017 of the trial court by which summons were issued in the suit and arguments were heard on the application under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC for appointment of Receiver for the hypothecated vehicle but no orders were passed in the same.3. The petitioner has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.4,65,033.01/-. It is Page 1 of 5 stated that the respondent had approache...
Sonica Jaggi vs.lt. Governor and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % SONICA JAGGI W.P.(C) No.1174/2008 27th January, 2017 ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajiv Aneja, Advocate. versus LT. GOVERNOR AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: None. 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 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is working as Physical Education Teacher in Shakti Mandir Premwati Public School, represented by respondent nos.4 to 6, seeks the relief of being granted the pay scale of Physical Education Teacher at Rs.5500-9000/- inasmuch as the petitioner pleads that she is being granted a lower pay scale of Rs.4500-125-7000/-.2. The petitioner admittedly was appointed as a Physical Education Teacher with the Shakti Mandir Premwati Public School and W.P.(C) No.1174/2008 Page 1 of 4 this is clear from the certificate annexed as Annexure-A to the writ petition which reads as under:-"Shakt...
Manoj Kumar Pansari vs.dena Bank & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~27 * + W.P.(C) 757/2017 & CMs 3500-01/2017 MANOJ KUMAR PANSARI ........ Petitioner Through : Mr. Ravi P. Shukla and Mr. Dhanjay Singh and Ms. Upasana Shukla, Advocates 1. versus Through : None. DENA BANK & ORS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % ORDER2701.2017 ..... Respondent The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for issuing a writ of mandamus to the respondent/Bank, calling upon it to declare him as the highest bidder in respect of an immovable property bearing No.D-25, Sector 2, DSIIDC, Bawana Delhi measuring 250 sq. Meters, that was e-auctioned on 6.9.2016.2. The brief facts of the case are that in the year 2016, the respondent/Dena Bank had issued a public notice/advertisement proposing to conduct an e-auction of several properties, including the subject property in respect whereof, the reserve price was fixed at Rs.1.27 crores. The petitioner decided to participate in the said e-auction. In accordanc...
k.r. Sachdeva vs.union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
$~Special Bench-2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6710/2015 Date of decision:27. h January, 2017 K.R. SACHDEVA ........ Petitioner Through Ms. Raman Oberoi, Advocate. UNION OF INDIA versus Through Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL) R.K. Sachdeva, in this writ petition, impugns the order dated 13th March, 2015, whereby MA Nos. 1692 and 1791 of 2014 in OA No.642/2013 praying for grant of interest on arrears with effect from 1st March, 1995 stands disallowed.2. The contention of the petitioner is that he should have been granted interest with effect from 1st March, 1995 i.e. the date when the petitioner had retired and became eligible for pension.3. OA No.642/2013, K.R. Sachdeva v. Union of India filed by the petitioner was partially allowed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, vide the order dated 7th January, 2014 in the following t...
Meeta Sachdev vs. Ashish Bharti
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
* % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved On : January 17, 2017 Judgment Delivered On : January 27, 2017 + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 42/2016 ASHISH BHARTI ..... Appellant Represented by : Mr.Rakesh Tiku, Sr Advocate instructed by Ms.Beenashaw Soni & Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Advocates. versus MEETA SACHDEV ..... Respondent Represented by : Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Sr Advocate instructed Mr.Ankur Mahindro & Mr.Govind Kumar, Advocates. by WITH + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 52/2016 MEETA SACHDEV ..... Appellant Represented by : Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Sr Advocate instructed Mr.Ankur Mahindro & Mr.Govind Kumar, Advocates. by versus MAT.APP.(F.C.) Nos.42 & 52 of 2016 Page 1 of 15 ASHISH BHARTI ..... Respondent Represented by : Mr.Rakesh Tiku, Sr Advocate instructed by Ms.Beenashaw Soni & Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA YOGESH KHANNA, J.1. Since the husband as also the wife are aggrieved by the order dated February 20, 2016 disposing of an a...
Icici Bank Ltd vs.mohd. Sobi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
$~A-50 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:27. 01.2017 + CM(M) 94/2017 and CM No.3017/2017 ICICI BANK LTD MOHD. SOBI Through versus Through ........ Petitioner Mr.Puneet K.Bhalla, Ms. Chetna Bhalla, Advs ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(Oral) CM No.3017/2017 (Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM(M) 94/2017 1. An advance copy of the petition has been sent to the respondent but none is present on behalf of the respondent.2. By the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 03.01.2017 of the trial court by which summons were issued in the suit and arguments were heard on the application under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC for appointment of Receiver for the hypothecated vehicle but no orders were passed in the same.3. The petitioner has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.4,89,677.79/-. It is Page 1 of 5 stated that the respondent had approached...
Sunil Kumar vs.surender Kumar & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-2017
$~A-41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:27. 01.2017 C.R.P. 21/2017 Through Mr.Lal Singh Thakur, Advocate ........ Petitioner SUNIL KUMAR SURENDER KUMAR & ANR versus Through ..... Respondent % + CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) CM No.3360/2017 (exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. C.R.P. 21/2017 & CM No.3361/2017 (stay) 1. By the present Revision Petition under section 115 of the CPC the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 6.12.2016 by which his application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed. The respondents have filed the suit for partition, declaration and permanent injunction. The plaint encompasses different properties/assets. A preliminary decree of partition is sought in respect of property No.FA-368, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi; a preliminary decree for partition of the shop bearing No.2987 Raj Guru Road, Chunna Mandi, Paharganj, Delhi and rendition of account regarding business and asse...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »