Court : Delhi
$~1 to 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:19. 02.2019 Pronounced on:26. 03.2019 + W.P.(C) 8597/2009 & CM APPLN. 5681/2009 SWARN BHANOT ........ Petitioner Through Dr.Aurobindo Ghose, Adv. with Mr.Prem Bhushan Dewan & Ms.Gurjeet Kaur, Advs. versus UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, Adv. for UOI. Mr.Yashraj Singh Deora, Adv. with Mr.Shyam Agarwal, Adv. for R-1. Mr.Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Mr.Waize Ali Noor & Mr.Parth Semwal, Advs. for UGC. Ms.Beenashaw N. Soni, Adv. with Mr.Aakash Yadav, Adv. for R-2. + W.P.(C) 12712/2009 & CM APPLN. 13404/2009 & 21945/2010 R C BHATIA ........ Petitioner Through Dr.Aurobindo Ghose, Adv. with Mr.Prem Bhushan Dewan & Ms.Gurjeet Kaur, Advs. versus SHYAM LAL COLLEGE(EVENING) THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL AND ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr.Yashraj Singh Deora, Adv. with Mr.Shyam Agarwal, Adv. for R-1. W.P.(C) 8597/2009, 12712/2009 & 3679/2017 Page 1 of 30 + W.P.(C) 3679/2017 KANCHAN SAINI ........ Peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on July 03 , 2015 Judgment delivered on July 17, 2015 + W.P.(C) 3075/2014 & CM No.6445/2014 DR. M.S. FRANK Through: ..... Petitioner Mr.Sunil Mathews, Adv. with Mr. Mohit K. Daraad and Ms. Reeja Varghese, Advs. versus DELHI UNIVERSITY & ORS Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Mohinder Jeet Singh Rupal, Advocate with Mr.Abhijeet Singh, Advocate for R-1 Mr. A. Mariarputtam, Sr. Adv. with Mr. K. Vijay Kumar, Adv. for R-2 & 3 Mr. Romy Chacko, Advocate for R-4 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the report of the Inquiry Officer, in an Inquiry conducted pursuant to a charge-sheet issued to him on December 22, 2011, whereby the learned Enquiry Officer has proved certain charges against the petitioner and further penalties of (i) forfeiture with effect from January 08, 2014 of two increments of the petitioners salary; (ii) requirement to submit a b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 137(2007)DLT138
S. Muralidhar, J.1. The petitioner, an aided minority educational institution, has filed this Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs:(a) A declaration that Clause 7(4A) of Ordinance xviii of Delhi University is ultra virus and unconstitutional;(b) A declaration that amended Clause 7(4A) of Ordinance xviii of Delhi University does not apply to the Petitioner;(c) A writ of certiorari to quash an Order dated 13.2.2006 passed by the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions2. The main issue that arises for determination in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner is obliged to constitute a Selection Committee for filling up the post of Lecturer in different subjects, in accordance with the amended Clause 7(4A) of Chapter xviii of the Delhi University Ordinance.Background Facts3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner issued an advertisement in the newspapers on 21.6.2005 inviting applications for the post of Lecturer in different subjects. The petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be referred in the digest? Yes 1. These two petitions involve the following questions of law: i) Notwithstanding the fundamental right guaranteed to minority institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution, can the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (`GNCTD) insist that the retirement age of the Principal of an unaided minority school can be no different from that of a Principal of a government school or a private unaided or aided school recognised as such by the GNCTD in terms of the Delhi School Education Act, 1974 (`DSE Act)?(ii) Is the GNCTD right in its stand that Rule 110(1) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (DSE Rules), which, inter alia, governs the retirement age of a Principal of a recognised private aided or unaided recognised school, also applies to a recognised unaided minority school? Both pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on January 09, 2014 Judgment Delivered on April 21, 2014 + W.P.(C) 2448/1996 DAULAT RAM COLLEGE Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr. M.M.Kalra, Advocate with Mr. Kunal Kalra and Ms. Sushma Sachdeva, Advocates versus REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Rajesh Manchanda, Advocate with Mr. Rajat Manchanda, Advocate for R1. Mr. M.M.Singh, Advocate with Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate for R2. Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate with Ms. Mamta Tiwari, Advocate for UGC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Commissioner, in short) under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Act, 1952 (Act, in short) which was communicated to the petitionerCollege vide covering letter dated May 27, 1995, whereby the Commissioner was of the view that the petitioner-Colleg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
G. Rohini, CJ. 1. The present appeal as well as the writ petition are filed by Haryana Shakti College of Education, a college established by Haryana Shakti Education Society. 2. While LPA No.707/2013 has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 02.09.2013 in W.P.(C) No.4009/2013, the subsequent order dated 10.09.2013 passed by Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University in terms of the directions of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.4009/2013 has been assailed in W.P.(C) No.6365/2013. 3. Since parties are common and common questions of fact and law arise for consideration in both the matters, we have heard the matters together and decided by this common order. 4. The facts of the case which are not in dispute are as under: (i) Haryana Shakti Education Society (for short the Society') has been running a school under the name of Haryana Shakti Secondary School from the year 1945 in its own land situated in Kanjhawala village, North West District, Delhi. Since...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
G. Rohini, CJ. 1. The present appeal as well as the writ petition are filed by Haryana Shakti College of Education, a college established by Haryana Shakti Education Society. 2. While LPA No.707/2013 has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 02.09.2013 in W.P.(C) No.4009/2013, the subsequent order dated 10.09.2013 passed by Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University in terms of the directions of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.4009/2013 has been assailed in W.P.(C) No.6365/2013. 3. Since parties are common and common questions of fact and law arise for consideration in both the matters, we have heard the matters together and decided by this common order. 4. The facts of the case which are not in dispute are as under: (i) Haryana Shakti Education Society (for short the Society') has been running a school under the name of Haryana Shakti Secondary School from the year 1945 in its own land situated in Kanjhawala village, North West District, Delhi. Since...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:10. 10.2013 + W.P.(C) No.6512 of 2013 KARANJIT SINGH SANDHU ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Devinder Singh Khatana, Adv. with Petitioner in person. Versus THE GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY, DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Vaibhav Kalra & Ms. Sumedha Dang, Advs. for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(ORAL) CM No.14159/2013 (Exemption) Allowed subject to just exceptions. WP (C) No.6512/2013 The petitioner before this Court took admission in the five years B. Arch. Course of respondent No.1/The Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi (for short GGSIPU) and joined respondent No.2/The Sushant School of Art & Architecture, which is affiliated to the GGSIPU. The petitioner could not clear his third year examination held in the year 2012 in the first chance. He was promoted to the 4th year by the college/respondent No.2 and in September, 2012, he re-appeared in the papers in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2282/2015 % Judgement pronounced on:09. 03.2015 UNIVERSITY OF DELHI ... Petitioner Through: Mr Girindra Kumar Pathak, Adv. Versus SH. TAHEL RAM BELLANI AND ORS. .......Respondents Through: Ms.Amrita Prakash, Advocate for R3&4. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA JUDGMENT (ORAL) CM No.4088/2015 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 2282/2015 and CM No.4087/2015 (stay) 1. Heard.2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the Controlling Authority dated 18.03.2014 under The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the PG Act), whereby the petitioner was directed to pay the remaining gratuity along with simple interest at the rate of 10% from the date it became payable till the date of payment to the respondent and also against the order of the Appellate Authority dated 03.09.2014, whereby the appeal filed by the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in the Digest?ORDER.1. The petitioner having failed to appear on the scheduled date and time for counseling for the admission to the medical colleges to pursue MBBS course has filed this petition for direction to the respondent to allow the petitioner to participate in counseling in the 2nd round and which is stated to be underway.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he could not appear for the counseling on the scheduled date and time for the reason of misconception; it is contended that though the petitioner was to appear for counseling as per his counseling category rank, but remained under the impression that he was to appear for counseling as per his All India Rank. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a young boy of about 20 years of age and even if has committed a mistake, ought not t...
Tag this Judgment!