Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1996IAD(Delhi)117; 61(1996)DLT197; 1996(36)DRJ268
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) This is an application seeking review of the order dated 30.11.95 passed in Cwp No.2231/95 whereby the writ petition Filed by the petitioner was directed to be dismissed on the ground of availability of an efficacious alternate remedy by preferring a petition under Section 164 of the Army Act.(2) Vide para 19 of the order, we have held that jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain writ petition in an appropriate case without insisting on the Filing and disposal of pre-confirmation/post- confirmation is not taken away such as where there is a patent lack of jurisdiction in constitution of a court martial or any proceeding thereto. It is submitted by learned counsel for the review-applicant that in the case at hand there has been a breach of Section 130 of the Army Act which strikes at the very root of the Constitution of the court martial and hence the present one is a case where the court should have entertained the writ petition for adjudication on merits without...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : October 31, 2012 Judgment Pronounced on : November 19, 2012 + W.P. (C) No.5182/2012 DARSHAN LAL CHOWDHARY Petitioner Represented by: Ms.Jyoti Singh, Senior Advocate instructed by Mr.Sanjeev Chaswal, Ms.Saahila Lamba, and Mr.Amandeep Joshi, Advocates. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms.Anjana Gosain, Advocate. W.P. (C) No.5303/2012 V.S.S. GOUDAR Petitioner Represented by: Ms.Jyoti Singh, Senior Advocate instructed by Mr.Sanjeev Chaswal, Ms.Saahila Lamba, and Mr.Amandeep Joshi, Advocates. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms.Anjana Gosain, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. The facts leading to the filing of the above captioned petitions are that in the year 1974 the petitioners of the two writ petitions were commissioned in the Indian Army in the rank of Second Lieutenant and got prom...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:5. h March, 2018 Decided on:03. d April, 2018 + CRL.REV.P. 462/2017 STATE ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. R.S. Kundu, ASC with Ms. Suman Saharan and Mr. Premsagar Pal, Advocates. SI Bhoop Singh, P.S. A.C. Branch. versus + W.P.(CRL) 942/2017 and CRL. M.A. Nos. 5237/2017, MUKESH KUMAR SINGH & ANR Through: None. ........ RESPONDENTS 8318/2017 and 8319/2017 + W.P.(CRL) 3012/2017 K G TYAGI ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Hariharan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Riyaz A. Bhatt, Mr. Jacob and Mr. Nayyar Kedar, Advocates. STATE versus Through: Mr. R.S. Kundu, ASC with Ms. Suman Saharan and Mr. Premsagar Pal, Advocates. SI Bhoop Singh, P.S. A.C. Branch. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA J UD G M E N T The challenge 1. The criminal case (CC No.18/2010) from which these three CRL.REV.P. 462/2017 etc. Page 1 of 95 petitions arise was registered on the basis of report(s) submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Civil Procedure, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 99(2002)DLT822; 2002(64)DRJ545
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. Interpretation of Section 3(3)(b)(i) of Delhi Municipal Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') falls for consideration in this Letters Patent Appeal, which arises out of a judgment and order dated 20.11.2001 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.P. No. 57 of 2001 whereby and whereunder a notification dated 15.12.2000 issued by the Administrator, Delhi in exercise of his power conferred upon him under Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the said Act was set aside.2. Elections for Councillors in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (in short, 'the Corporation') were held in February, 1997. The Administrator in exercise of his power conferred upon him under Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the said Act vide notification dated 29.09.1997, nominated ten persons to be represented in the Corporation including the petitioners. The said notification had neither been withdrawn nor cancelled or amended.3. By reason of the impugned notification dated 15.12.2000, the Administrator...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 3317/2017 Reserved on:16. h March 2018 Decided on:26. h April 2018 RAVINDER ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Akhil Sharma, Advocate Isha Aggarwal, with Ms. Advocate versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr.Standing Counsel with Mr. Prashant Singh, Mr. Tushar Sannu, Advocate for R-1 and R-2. Mrs. Tripathi, Advocate with Mr. Shikhar Khare, Mr. Motish Kumar Singh, Mr. Saurabh Sachdev, Advocates for R-3/IHBAS CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR Neelima JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA JUDGMENT Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: Introduction 1. The... Petitioner came to this Court on 25th November 2017 with this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the release of his 71 year old father, Mr. Ram Kumar @ Ram Kanwar (Respondent No.4), from illegal detention at the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS) (Respondent No.3) at W.P.(C) No.3317/2017 Page...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2008 passed by the learned trial court rejecting the plaint of the appellant under order VII Rule 11 CPC as being barred by law. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for disposal of the present appeal are that plaintiff (appellant herein) claims himself to be the owner of shop bearing no.12, Esplanade Road, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, measuring 30 sq. yards (hereinafter referred to as.the shop), having purchased the same from its erstwhile owner, Sh. Preet Kumar Gupta, on 15.9.2003 by means of a Registered Sale Deed. Smt. Bimla Kumari Gupta, the mother of respondents no. 1-3, was inducted as a tenant in the said shop. The tenancy of the mother of respondents no. 1-3 was terminated by the erstwhile owner Sh. Preet Kumar Gupta in the month of January, 2000. The mother of respondents no.1-3 died in the month of February, 2000, and thereafter respondents no.1-3 continued to remain in possession of the said shop. As per...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: December11, 2014 + W.P.(C) 3808/2012 & CM Nos. 7984/2012 & 3474/2013, W.P.(C) 3809/2012 & CM Nos.7985/2012, 3480/2013, W.P.(C) 3810/2012 & CM Nos. 3478/2013, 11079/2012, 7986/2012 , W.P.(C) 3811/2012 & CM Nos. 7987/2012, 3483/2013, W.P.(C) 3812/2012 & CM Nos. 7988/2012, 3479/2013, W.P.(C) 3813/2012 & CM Nos.7989/2012, 11108/2012, 3475/2013, W.P.(C) 3814/2012 & CM Nos. 7990/2012, 3477/2013, W.P.(C) 3815/2012 & CM Nos.3481/2013, 7991/2012, W.P.(C) 3816/2012 & CM Nos.7992/2012, 3482/2013, W.P.(C) 3818/2012 & 3476/2013, 8000/2012 & W.P.(C) 3969/2012 & 8313/2012 CHHAVI GROVER AND ORS. ..... Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3808/2012 MEERA DAWAR AND ORS. ..... Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3809/2012 VIKAS PALIWAL AND ORS. ..... Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3810/2012 MADHU BHANDARI AND ORS. ..... Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3811/2012 RASHMI JS THAPA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3812/2012 KUSUM SINGH AND ORS. ..... Petitioners in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: December11, 2014 + W.P.(C) 3808/2012 & CM Nos. 7984/2012 & 3474/2013, W.P.(C) 3809/2012 & CM Nos.7985/2012, 3480/2013, W.P.(C) 3810/2012 & CM Nos. 3478/2013, 11079/2012, 7986/2012 , W.P.(C) 3811/2012 & CM Nos. 7987/2012, 3483/2013, W.P.(C) 3812/2012 & CM Nos. 7988/2012, 3479/2013, W.P.(C) 3813/2012 & CM Nos.7989/2012, 11108/2012, 3475/2013, W.P.(C) 3814/2012 & CM Nos. 7990/2012, 3477/2013, W.P.(C) 3815/2012 & CM Nos.3481/2013, 7991/2012, W.P.(C) 3816/2012 & CM Nos.7992/2012, 3482/2013, W.P.(C) 3818/2012 & 3476/2013, 8000/2012 & W.P.(C) 3969/2012 & 8313/2012 CHHAVI GROVER AND ORS. ..... Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3808/2012 MEERA DAWAR AND ORS. ..... Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3809/2012 VIKAS PALIWAL AND ORS. ..... Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3810/2012 MADHU BHANDARI AND ORS. ..... Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3811/2012 RASHMI JS THAPA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3812/2012 KUSUM SINGH AND ORS. ..... Petitioners in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: December11, 2014 + W.P.(C) 3808/2012 & CM Nos. 7984/2012 & 3474/2013, W.P.(C) 3809/2012 & CM Nos.7985/2012, 3480/2013, W.P.(C) 3810/2012 & CM Nos. 3478/2013, 11079/2012, 7986/2012 , W.P.(C) 3811/2012 & CM Nos. 7987/2012, 3483/2013, W.P.(C) 3812/2012 & CM Nos. 7988/2012, 3479/2013, W.P.(C) 3813/2012 & CM Nos.7989/2012, 11108/2012, 3475/2013, W.P.(C) 3814/2012 & CM Nos. 7990/2012, 3477/2013, W.P.(C) 3815/2012 & CM Nos.3481/2013, 7991/2012, W.P.(C) 3816/2012 & CM Nos.7992/2012, 3482/2013, W.P.(C) 3818/2012 & 3476/2013, 8000/2012 & W.P.(C) 3969/2012 & 8313/2012 CHHAVI GROVER AND ORS. ..... Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3808/2012 MEERA DAWAR AND ORS. ..... Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3809/2012 VIKAS PALIWAL AND ORS. ..... Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3810/2012 MADHU BHANDARI AND ORS. ..... Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3811/2012 RASHMI JS THAPA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3812/2012 KUSUM SINGH AND ORS. ..... Petitioners in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on February 12, 2015 Judgment delivered on July 01, 2015 + ARB.P. Nos.539/1999, 540/1999, 541/1999, 542/1999 & 544/1999 POWER GRID CORPN. OF (I) LTD. Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. P.K. Mishra & Ms. Kanika Tandon, Advs. versus RPG TRANSMISSION LTD. Through: ..... Respondent Mr. J.M. Mukhi, Mr. M.K. Garg & Ms. Shakumbri Singh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. These five petitions have been filed by Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act in short). These petitions were disposed of by this Court vide order dated August 20, 2001, which order was challenged by the respondent herein initially before the Division Bench of this Court by way of a Writ Petition No.7226/2000, whereby the Division Bench had dismissed the writ petition vide order dated May 09, 2002.2. The order dated May 09, 2002 was c...
Tag this Judgment!