Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-08-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + OMP3842015 Reserved on:7. h November, 2017, Date of decision:8. h January, 2018 MAPEX INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Arun K. Varma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.K. Chandwani, Mr.Ashish Joshi and Mr. Sameer Chandwani, Advocates versus NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Through: Ms. Gunjan S. Jain, Advocate ..... Respondent + OMP3912015 NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Through: Ms. Gunjan S. Jain, Advocate ........ Petitioner versus MAPEX INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Arun K. Varma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.K. Chandwani, Mr.Ashish Joshi and Mr. Sameer Chandwani, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA OMP Nos.384 & 391/2015 Page 1 1. The above petitions have been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenging the award dated 17th March, 2015 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three Arbitrators.2. MAPEX ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-05-2018
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: November 22, 2017 Pronounced on: January 05, 2018 + CRL.A.362/2016 VIPIN KUMAR SALUJA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Azhar Qayum, Advocate with Mr.Narender Kumar, Advocate. Versus STATE Through: Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP ..... Respondent CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA JUDGMENT Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:1. This appeal is directed against a judgment dated 6th November, 2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in S.C.No.88/2013 arising out of FIR No.17/2008 registered at Police Station (PS) Rohini convicting the Appellant under Sections 302, 364,392,201 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the order on sentence dated 16th November, 2015 whereby: (i) for the offence under Section 302 IPC, the Appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years; (ii) for the offence under Section 364 IPC, he was sentenced to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-05-2018
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C)No.10498/2015 and CM No.44852/2016 % Reserved on :30. h November, 2017 Date of decision :5. h January, 2018 KUSH KALRA Through: Dr. ........ Petitioner Charu Wali and Mr. Singh Khanna Dharmendra Pal, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Mr. Gautam Narayan, Amicus Curiae ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC for R-1/UOI with Ms. Sanya and Mr. Panjwani Kunal Dutt, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE The subordination of one sex to the other ought to be replaced by a principle of perfect equality, admitting no power or privilege on the one side, nor disability on the other. John Stuart Mill W.P.(C)No.10498/2015 Page 1 of 44 1. This writ petition, instituted in public interest by the petitioner, complains of institutional discrimination by the respondents against women and prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of a mandamus to place ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-04-2018
$~11 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: January 04, 2018 W.P.(C) 11887/2015 KUNAL & ORS ........ Petitioners Through: Mr.Manoj Kumar Sahu, Advocate versus NAVAL PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Ambuj Dixit, Advocate and Ms.Kritika Angirish, Advocate for R-1 with Captain Rakesh Dhall, Executive Director Mr.Satyakam, Advocate (ASC) for respondent No.2 and Mr.Ashok Nayar, LA, DoE, GNCTD CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR CM No.45010/2017 ORDER (ORAL) By way of this application, first respondent has provided the break- up of salary of late Jai Raj whose legal heirs are petitioners herein. The application is allowed and the break-up of the salary of Jai Raj provided in this application is taken on record. W.P.(C) No.11887/2015 1. By way of this writ petition, petitioner seeks execution of the award of 18th February, 2006 vide which reinstatement of workman-Jai Raj with continuity in service and full back wages was ordered. Respondent-management...
Tag this Judgment!