Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P. (C) No. 7553 of 2003 Reserved on: November 11, 2011 Decision on: January 20, 2012 MOOLCHAND KHARAITI RAM HOSPITAL and AYURVEDIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Shanti Bhushan and Mr. Raj Birbal, Senior Advocates with Ms. Raavi Birbal, Advocate. versus MOOLCHAND KHARAITI RAM HOSPITAL KARAMCHARI UNION and ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Sanjay Parikh with Ms. Mamta Saxena and Mr. Pranay Raina, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Shandilya, Ms. Ekta Mehta and Ms. Joanee Pudussery, Advocates for R-2. Mr. Shyam Moorjani, Advocate for Intervenors. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT 20.01.2012 Introduction 1.1 The Petitioner, the management of the Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Hospital and Ayurvedic Research Institute ('Management'), challenges an Award dated 14th January 2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-II ('Tribunal') in Industrial Dispute No.2. of 1999 as well as the subsequent order dated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:13. 08.2014 WP(C) 4653/2013 N GOPALASWAMI & ORS ... Petitioners versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner For the Respondent No.1 For the Respondent No.2 : Mr Shanti Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr Prashant Bhushan and Mr Pranav Sachdeva : Mr G. E. Vahanvati, AG with Mr Paras Kuhad and Mr Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr Jatan Singh, Mr Sumeet Pushkarna, Gaurav Sharma, Mr Soayib Qureshi, Mr Kartikey Mahajan, Mr Devdutt Kamat, Mr Anoopam Prasad, Ms Tara Narula, Mr Nizam Pasha and Ms Sania Husaini : Mr Amit Sibal with Mr Amrinder Singh AND + WP(C) 4619/2013 MANOHAR LAL SHARMA ADVOCATE ... Petitioner versus THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PRIME MINISTER OFFICE AND OTHERS ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Petitioner-in-person with Ms Suman For the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr Paras Kuhad and Mr Rajeeve Mehra, ASGs with Mr Jatan Singh, Mr Sume...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:13. 08.2014 WP(C) 4653/2013 N GOPALASWAMI & ORS ... Petitioners versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner For the Respondent No.1 For the Respondent No.2 : Mr Shanti Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr Prashant Bhushan and Mr Pranav Sachdeva : Mr G. E. Vahanvati, AG with Mr Paras Kuhad and Mr Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr Jatan Singh, Mr Sumeet Pushkarna, Gaurav Sharma, Mr Soayib Qureshi, Mr Kartikey Mahajan, Mr Devdutt Kamat, Mr Anoopam Prasad, Ms Tara Narula, Mr Nizam Pasha and Ms Sania Husaini : Mr Amit Sibal with Mr Amrinder Singh AND + WP(C) 4619/2013 MANOHAR LAL SHARMA ADVOCATE ... Petitioner versus THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PRIME MINISTER OFFICE AND OTHERS ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Petitioner-in-person with Ms Suman For the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr Paras Kuhad and Mr Rajeeve Mehra, ASGs with Mr Jatan Singh, Mr Sume...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:17. h November, 2014 + W.P.(C) 1000/2013 & CM Nos.16423/2013 & 3505/2014 SHRI AITA RAM Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sarvajeet Kumar Thakur, Advocate. Versus HINDUSTAN TIMES LTD. Represented by: ..... Respondent Dr. A.M. Singhvi and Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Ms. Meghna Mishra and Mr. Nakul Sachdeva, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.W.P.(C) 1000/2013 1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 12.10.2012 passed by the Executing Court, whereby the execution petition was dismissed by recording that since the award dated 23.01.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal is silent regarding back wages, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the learned Tribunal has also granted back wages to the decree holders, therefore, decree cannot be executed regarding the back wages as prayed.2. It is pertinent to me...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + SHIAM COOPERATIVE GROUP FAO (OS) 120/2017 ..... Appellant Through: Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Ms.Renuka Arora, Advs. versus M/S. KAMAL CONSTRUCTION CO. LTDRespondent Through: Mr.Raman Kapur, Sr. Adv. with Mr.F. Hasan, Mr.R.P. Singh and Mr.Varun Kapur, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR % JUDGMENT1008.2017 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.1. Vide order dated 10th August, 2017, we had dismissed the present appeal, for reasons to be recorded separately. We proceed, by this judgement, to record our reasons for the said order.2. The appellant seeks, by the present appeal, to challenge the order, dated 15th February, 2017, of the learned Single Judge in OMP No.144/2010, whereby the objections, filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against award dated 14th December, 2009, of the learned Arbitral Tribunal, have been dismissed. FAO (OS) 12...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... corporation ........ petitioner ..... respondent advocates who appeared in this case: for the... petitioner for the respondent coram hon ble mr justice vibhu bakhru : mr anil sapra, senior advocate with ms manjula gandhi, mr aditya kapoor, mr sarthak, ms piyusha singh, mr shivanshu kumar, mr jaideep singh and mr kartik bhardwaj. : mr ravi sikri, sr. advocate with ms shweta bharti, mr neelesh sinha .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on 19.04.2018 Judgment delivered on:01. 06.2018 FAO2632008 ANIL KAKKAR & ORS. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Anunaya Mehta and Mr. Akshay Deep S., Advs. Versus HANS RAJ KAKKAR & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar and Mr. Sameer Rai, Advs. for R-1 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI, J.1. This appeal impugns the order dated 06.05.2008 granting probate to respondent no.1 on a Will propounded dated 31.12.1997 purportedly executed by his late mother Smt. Bhagwanti Kakkar. The appellant is a sibling of the beneficiary of the said Will. He has challenged the said order on the ground that it has erred primarily on the following grounds: a) the probate petition sought by limitation hence it was not maintainable; and FAO2632008 Page 1 of 26 b) the will propounded by respondent number one was steeped in suspicious circumstances, an issue which was not thoroughly examined by the trial court.2. The issues t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... wp(c) 5217/2017 & connected matters page 210 of 218 down such state action. (see also: e.p. royappa v. state of tamil nadu and anr. : air1974sc555 and smt. meneka gandhi v. union of india and anr. : air1978sc597.51. in m/s. sharma transport rep. by d.p. sharma v. government of a.p. and ors. : air2002sc322 this court defined arbitrariness .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... in london. thereafter, they shifted to delhi. initially, both the appellant and the deceased lived with the parents of the appellant at a house known as big city on kasturba gandhi marg.8. it must be recalled at this stage that until the framing of the additional charge, the case of the prosecution against the appellant was with regard to his .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... /2013 page 6 of 83 12. is it true that rules were by-passed in the hon ble speaker in allowing hon ble lok sabha member discharging her shri rahul gandhi to speak out of turn constitutional duties can during zero hour on saturday, i.e. permit any member to 27.08.2011 with/without prior notice as raise any issue .....
Tag this Judgment!