Delhi Court February 2019 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.
Hari Om Gaur vs.uoi & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2019
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Decision :7. h February, 2019 W.P.(C) 13600/2004 HARI OM GAUR ........ Petitioner Through : Ms. Garima Sachdeva, Adv. along with petitioner. versus UOI & ORS. Through : Mr. Manish Mohan, CGSC with ........ RESPONDENTS Ms. Manisha Saroha, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioners grievance is that his claim for parity in recruitment rules and promotional opportunities, with the combatised stream of Aircraft Maintenance employees and officials, was denied by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in its impugned judgment.2. The brief facts necessary for deciding this case are that the petitioner had initially worked with the Indian Air Force; after his retirement, he joined the Border Security Force (BSF), Air Wing as a Senior Aircraft Mechanic on 07.05.1991. He was appointed to the position of Senior Aircraft Mechanic (in the non-combatised, ...
Surabhi Chaudhary vs.state & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2019
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: February 07, 2019 CRL.M.C. 1088/2017 SURABHI CHAUDHARY .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Saahila Lamba, Mr. Tarun Khanna and Mr. Abhas Mishra, Advocates versus STATE & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. M.S.Oberoi, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with SI Inder Pal Mr. Harsh Ahuja, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 5 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Impugned order of 25th November, 2016 grants regular bail to respondent Nos. 3 to 5/accused in FIR No.346/15, under Sections 498A/4of IPC registered at Police Station Vikas Puri. A bare perusal of impugned order of 25th November, 2016 reveals that in the absence of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the complainant, impugned order has been passed. It is quite strange that without hearing the Public Prosecutor, regular bail has been granted to respondent Nos. 3 to 5/accused. CRL.M.C. 1088/2017 Page 1 of 2 In the peculiarity of this cas...
M/S V2 Retail Ltd. Vs.regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2019
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:07. 02.2019 ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Vishwendra Verma, Adv. M/S V2 RETAIL LTD. + W.P.(C) 1338/2015 & CM No.28517/2015 versus REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Sanjay K. Shandilya, Adv. for R-1 & 2. Mr.Atul Batra, Adv. for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL) 1. Vide the present petition under Articlesof the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought a direction to the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal to decide his application seeking a direction to the respondent no.1 to pay interest on the amount of Rs.3,41,78,702/- refunded back to him. In his application before the Tribunal, the petitioner had also prayed for a penalty to be imposed on the respondents.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid amount which had been refunded back to the petitioner in November, 2014, had been deposited pursuant to orders passe...
Amit Kumar Singh vs.union of India & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2019
$~ * 18 + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 6507/2017 AMIT KUMAR SINGH ........ Petitioner Through: Mr Naveen R. Nath, Mr Dinesh Yadav, Mr Rahul Jain and Mr Siddarth Agarwal, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ....... RESPONDENTS Through: Ms Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC for UOI with Mr Siddharth Singh, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA % ORDER0702.2019 Dr. S. Muralidhar, J:1. The... Petitioner, who was a Sub Inspector (SI) with the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and was deployed for security duties at the Delhi Metro, CISF Unit, has challenged in this petition an order dated 7th November, 2016 passed by the Deputy Inspector General (DIG), CISF Unit, DMRC, Delhi (hereinafter the Disciplinary Authority (DA) dismissing him from service with immediate effect. He has also challenged the order dated 24th January, 2017 passed by the Inspector General (IG), North Sector, rejecting his appeal against the aforementioned dismissal order and the orde...
D C vs.b C
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~14 * % + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 147/2017 & CM APPL. 30031/2017 (Stay) Date of Judgment:07. 02.2019 D C B C ..... Appellant Through Ms. Tania Singh, Advocate alongwith appellant in person Versus ..... Respondent Through Mr. Anirudh K. Mudgal and Mr. B. Venkatraman, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH G.S. SISTANI, J.(ORAL) CM. No.30033/2017 (delay of 53 days) 1. This is an application filed by the appellant/husband seeking condonation of 53 days delay in filing the present appeal. In view of the judgment rendered by the Full bench of High Court of Bombay in the case of Shivram Dodanna Shetty vs. Sou. Sharmila Shivram Shetty reported at 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 9844 passed on 01.12.2016, the period of limitation prescribed under sub-section (4) of Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as HMA) for an appeal under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is 90 days. MAT. ...
Jitender Singh vs.the State (Nct ) of Delhi & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2019
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: February 07, 2019 CRL.M.C. 6319/2018 JITENDER SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocate versus THE STATE ( NCT ) OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State with SI Sunil Kumar Respondent No.2 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) CRL.M.A. 49525/2018 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 6319/2018 Quashing of FIR No.596/2013, under Sections 498A/4of IPC, registered at police station Govind Puri, Delhi is sought on the basis of Mediated Settlement of 1st March, 2017 (Annexure-C) reached between the parties. Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court is the complainant/first informant of FIR in question and she has been identified to be so, by SI Sunil Kumar on the basis of identity proof produced by CRL.M.C. 6319/2018 Page ...
Deepak Aggarwal & Anr vs.shakuntala Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2019
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RSA102019 and CM No.2714/2019 Judgment reserved on :21. 01.2019 Date of decision :07. 02.2019 DEEPAK AGGARWAL & ANR .....Appellants Through: Mr. Rajiv Tyagi and Mr.Rohit Gupta, Advocates versus SHAKUNTALA DEVI ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Mayuri Raghuvanshi and Mr.Vyom Raghuvanshi, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA JUDGMENT ANU MALHOTRA, J.1. The appellants No.1 and 2 vide the present Regular Second Appeal assail the impugned order dated 30.10.2018 of the First Appellate Court of the Additional District Judge-03 (North-West), Rohini Courts in RCA No.86/2017 vide which the said appeal against the judgment and decree dated 5.9.2017 of the Court of the ACJ-cum- ARC (North-West) in New Suit No.59269/2016 (Old suit No.32/2015) was dismissed.2. Vide the order dated 5.9.2017, the suit filed by Smt. Shakuntala Devi arrayed as the respondent to the present appeal against the RSA102019 Page 1 of 50 appellants herein arrayed as the d...
Ashok Kumar Dixit vs.the Oriental Insurace Co Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2019
$~12 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LPA6992017 ASHOK KUMAR DIXIT ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Arvind Nayar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Upasana Chandra Shekaran, Mr. Anuj Tiwari, Mr. Ritwik Sahay, Mr. Shikhar Srivastav and Ms. Mallika Kamal, Advocates. versus THE ORIENTAL INSURACE CO LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. K.K. Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr.Rahul Ranjan Verma and Mr. Anshul Rai, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA % Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: ORDER0702.2019 1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 28th April, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) No.3547 of 2017 filed by the Appellant.2. In effect, by the impugned order the learned Single Judge rejected the challenge by the Appellant to the orders passed by the Respondent Oriental Insurance Company Limited (OICL) rejecting his plea for voluntary retirement. LPA699of 2017 Page 1 of 11 3. The background facts are that on 1st May, 1995, the Appellant was posted as Se...
Videocon Industries Ltd. Vs.morgan Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd. & An ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2019
$~5 & 6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:7. h February, 2019 5 + 6 + VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD. O.M.P. 665/2013 & I.A. 14901/2018 ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajneesh Sharma, Advocate (M:98106. 3470). MORGAN SECURITIES & CREDITS PVT. LTD. & ANR. versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. K. Datta and Mr. Simran Mehta, Advocates. (M:9891137150) AND O.M.P. 972/2013 MORGAN SECURITIES & CREDITS PVT. LTD. ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. K. Datta and Mr. Simran Mehta, Advocates. versus BPL DISPLAY DEVICES LTD. & ANR. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Rajneesh Sharma, Advocate. Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral) 1. The present petitions have been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter the Act) challenging award dated 1st March, 2013, thereafter, corrected on 29th April, 2013 passed by Ld. Sole Arbitrator Justice A. P. Shah (Retd.).2. Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter Morgan Securi...
Ankur Panwar vs.state (Govt. Of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2019
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: February 07, 2019 CRL.M.C. 4537/2018 & CRL.M.A. 31577/2018 ANKUR PANWAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. P.Choudhary and Mr. Keshav Sehgal, Advocates versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with SI Ashwani CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Quashing of FIR No.578/2015, under Sections 498A/4of IPC & Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at police station Jyoti Nagar, North East Delhi is sought on merits. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that the matter is coming up before the trial court on 12th February, 2019 for the hearing on point of charge. Since petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy to seek discharge from trial court by urging the pleas taken herein, therefore, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this...
- ‹ Prev
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- Next ›
- Last »