Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
Decided on : Mar-31-2014
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.494/2005 The State of Rajasthan and anr. V/s Shri Lakhpat Raj Date of Judgment::- 31.3.2014. PRESENT Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Amitava Roy Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vijay Bishnoi Mr.K.L.Thakur, Additional Advocate General for the appellants. Mr.M.S.Singhvi, Senior Advocate with Mr.Amit Tatia for the respondent. JUDGMENT BY THE COURT (Per Hon'ble Amitava Roy,CJ.The subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal is the judgment and order dated 10.8.2005 whereby the penalty of compulsory retirement with proportionate pension imposed on the respondent-writ-petitioner by way of disciplinary measure has been annulled. We have heard Mr.K.L.Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants-State and Mr.M.S.Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-writ-petitioner. The prefatory facts preceding the initiation of disciplinary proceeding against the respondent-writ-petitioner are th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-28-2014
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.Nos.15438 of 2013 and batch 28-4-2014 G. Satyanarayana.. Petitioner The Government of Andhra Pradesh,Represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department,Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri Prabhakar Sripada Counsel for respondents : Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area) HEAD NOTE: ?. CASES REFERRED:1. AIR1982S.C. 1081 2. 2001(3) ALD6003. 1972(1) ALT2704. AIR1976A.P. 19 5. (1902) 1 MLJ4536. 2008(5) ALT313(DB) 7. 2011(5) ALT4208. 2011(3) ALD5719. (2000(3) ALT295 10. AIR1974S.C. 1178 11. AIR2000S.C. 3037 = 2000(7) SCC611 12. (1991) Supp. (2) SCC22813. AIR1956S.C. 305 14. (2006) 13 SCC14715. AIR1926P.C. 100 16. AIR1961A.P.361 17. 1996(11) SCC25718. 1989(3) SCC61219. 1993(4) SCC34920. 2002(5) ALT370(DB) 21. (1995) 3 SCC42622. 1999(5) ALD30923. 2002(1) ALT46624. AIR1952Hyderabad 75 25. ILR72A.P. 652 26. 1996(2) ALT95027. 1999(4) ALT209DB28 AIR1954SC57529. AIR1973SC129930. AIR1979SC86131. 2000(7) SCC6...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-02-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:02. 07.2014 + RC. REV. 283/2010 & CM No.8007/2011 (stay) ALLAHRAKHA & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. V.B. Andley, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajiv Duggal and Mr. Aly Mirza, Advocates. Versus ALLAHWALA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Vinod Malhotra & Mr. Nikhil Malhotra, Advocates. + RC. REV. 297/2010 & CM No.8009/2011 (stay) ASIF & NAIM ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. V.B. Andley, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajiv Duggal and Mr. Aly Mirza, Advocates. Versus ALLAHWALA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Vinod Malhotra & Mr. Nikhil Malhotra, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI % MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI1 This petition impugns an order of 07.09.2010 which allowed the respondents application under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act) and ordered the eviction of the petitioner from premises No.4234, Gali Qutubuddin, Gali Shahtara, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi.2. It has been the case of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-02-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:02. 07.2014 + RC. REV. 283/2010 & CM No.8007/2011 (stay) ALLAHRAKHA & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. V.B. Andley, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajiv Duggal and Mr. Aly Mirza, Advocates. Versus ALLAHWALA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Vinod Malhotra & Mr. Nikhil Malhotra, Advocates. + RC. REV. 297/2010 & CM No.8009/2011 (stay) ASIF & NAIM ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. V.B. Andley, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajiv Duggal and Mr. Aly Mirza, Advocates. Versus ALLAHWALA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Vinod Malhotra & Mr. Nikhil Malhotra, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI % MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI1 This petition impugns an order of 07.09.2010 which allowed the respondents application under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act) and ordered the eviction of the petitioner from premises No.4234, Gali Qutubuddin, Gali Shahtara, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi.2. It has been the case of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-08-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DATE OF DECISION:8. h AUGUST, 2014 CRL.A. 1092/2012 & Crl. M.B. No.1704/2012 + VARGAS JOSEANTONIO MAURICIO Through ..... Appellant Mr. Sanjiv Kumar and Mr. Santosh, Advocates. Versus D.R.I. Through ..... Respondent Mr. Satish Aggarwala and Ms. Pooja Bhaskar, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgement and order dated 07.07.2012 and 13.07.2012 passed in Sessions case No.21A/08 passed by Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Saket Court by which the appellant was convicted under Section 21(c) & 23(c) r/w Section 28 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as NDPS Act) and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years each and a fine of Rs 1 Lakh each for both the aforesaid offences, and in default of fine to further undergo S.I. for six months each for the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-24-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % CM(M) No.295/2014 24th November , 2014 MANOJ SAXENA Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Amitabh Narayan, Adv. VERSUS ASHOK GOEL & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM No.19234/2014 (preponing of date by the petitioner) Application for preponement is allowed. CM stands disposed of. The next date i.e 16.12.2014 stands cancelled. CM(M) No.295/2014 1. The petitioner, who is the defendant no.2(ii) in the suit, has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order of the trial court dated 27.11.2013 by which the trial court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for amendment of the written statement to add a new para 5A as under:5A. That the notice dated 13th August, 1969 is illegal as it has not been issued on behalf of the HUF of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-24-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % CM(M) No.295/2014 24th November , 2014 MANOJ SAXENA Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Amitabh Narayan, Adv. VERSUS ASHOK GOEL & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM No.19234/2014 (preponing of date by the petitioner) Application for preponement is allowed. CM stands disposed of. The next date i.e 16.12.2014 stands cancelled. CM(M) No.295/2014 1. The petitioner, who is the defendant no.2(ii) in the suit, has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order of the trial court dated 27.11.2013 by which the trial court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for amendment of the written statement to add a new para 5A as under:5A. That the notice dated 13th August, 1969 is illegal as it has not been issued on behalf of the HUF of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-24-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % CM(M) No.295/2014 24th November , 2014 MANOJ SAXENA Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Amitabh Narayan, Adv. VERSUS ASHOK GOEL & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM No.19234/2014 (preponing of date by the petitioner) Application for preponement is allowed. CM stands disposed of. The next date i.e 16.12.2014 stands cancelled. CM(M) No.295/2014 1. The petitioner, who is the defendant no.2(ii) in the suit, has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order of the trial court dated 27.11.2013 by which the trial court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for amendment of the written statement to add a new para 5A as under:5A. That the notice dated 13th August, 1969 is illegal as it has not been issued on behalf of the HUF of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:11. h September, 2014 Date of Decision:25thNovember, 2014 % + CRL. M.C. 716/2014 HARI PRAKASH GULIA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. A.K. Singh & Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocates. versus STATE & ANR. Through: .....Respondents Mr. Yogesh Verma, APP for the State. Mr. P.K. Malik, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH JUDGMENT1 The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) against order dated 25.09.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-03 (Central), Delhi whereby the revision petition was dismissed.2. The brief facts leading to the present petition are that respondent No.2 filed a complaint on the allegations, inter alia, that he is running business of selling lottery ticket on partnership basis at Stall No.1, U.P. Roadways Bus Stand, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi 110006 for the last more than 15 years. The said stal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:11. h September, 2014 Date of Decision:25thNovember, 2014 % + CRL. M.C. 716/2014 HARI PRAKASH GULIA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. A.K. Singh & Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocates. versus STATE & ANR. Through: .....Respondents Mr. Yogesh Verma, APP for the State. Mr. P.K. Malik, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH JUDGMENT1 The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) against order dated 25.09.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-03 (Central), Delhi whereby the revision petition was dismissed.2. The brief facts leading to the present petition are that respondent No.2 filed a complaint on the allegations, inter alia, that he is running business of selling lottery ticket on partnership basis at Stall No.1, U.P. Roadways Bus Stand, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi 110006 for the last more than 15 years. The said stal...
Tag this Judgment!