Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Delivered on :05. 03.2015 CRL.A.124/2013 REKHA SHARMA .. Appellant .. Respondent Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, Advocate : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Advocates CRL.A.152/2013 RAKSHA JINDAL .. Appellant .. Respondent Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Atul Bhuchar, Advocate : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Advocates CRL.A.159/2013 NIRMAL DEVI .. Appellant .. Respondent Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jatin Sehgal and Ms. Naina Dubey, Advocates : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Advocate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Delivered on :05. 03.2015 CRL.A.124/2013 REKHA SHARMA .. Appellant .. Respondent Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, Advocate : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Advocates CRL.A.152/2013 RAKSHA JINDAL .. Appellant .. Respondent Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Atul Bhuchar, Advocate : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Advocates CRL.A.159/2013 NIRMAL DEVI .. Appellant .. Respondent Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jatin Sehgal and Ms. Naina Dubey, Advocates : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Advocate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Delivered on :05. 03.2015 CRL.A.124/2013 REKHA SHARMA .. Appellant .. Respondent Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, Advocate : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Advocates CRL.A.152/2013 RAKSHA JINDAL .. Appellant .. Respondent Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Atul Bhuchar, Advocate : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Advocates CRL.A.159/2013 NIRMAL DEVI .. Appellant .. Respondent Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jatin Sehgal and Ms. Naina Dubey, Advocates : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Advocate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:11. 12.2018 Pronounced on:10. 04.2019 + W.P.(C) 11467/2018, CM APPL. 44376-44378/2018 MAHINDRA ELECTRIC MOBILITY LIMITED AND ANR. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus ........ Petitioners ........ RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner ....... RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioners ..... Respondent ........ Petitioner ....... RESPONDENTS versus versus TATA MOTORS LIMITED & ANR COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA versus MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR. GENERAL MOTORS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS + W.P.(C) 6610/2014 + W.P.(C) 6634/2014, CM APPL. 20409/2014 + W.P.(C) 7087/2014, CM APPL. 16614/2014, CM APPL. 39827/2018 + W.P.(C) 7121/2014, CM APPL. 16680/2014, CM APPL. 31959/2018 + W.P.(C) 7186/2014, CM APPL. 16889/2014 + W.P.(C) 7306/2014, CM APPL. 17096/2014 + W.P.(C) 7321/2014, CM APPL. 17118/2014 SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD UNION OF INDIA & ORS. MERCEDES BENZ INDIA PVT LT...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Delivered on :05. 03.2015 CRL.A.124/2013 REKHA SHARMA .. Appellant .. Respondent Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, Advocate : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Advocates CRL.A.152/2013 RAKSHA JINDAL .. Appellant .. Respondent Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Atul Bhuchar, Advocate : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Advocates CRL.A.159/2013 NIRMAL DEVI .. Appellant .. Respondent Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jatin Sehgal and Ms. Naina Dubey, Advocates : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Advocate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 184/2007 % Reserved on :21. t February, 2017 Pronounced on:27. h April, 2017 FEDERATION OF RETIRED LIC CLASS I OFFICER........ Petitioner Through Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajiv K. Garg, Mr.Ashish Garg, Ms. Mahima Rathi & Mr. S. Bushra Kazim, Advocates. versus UOI & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Mr. Surajit Bhaduri & Ms.Aakashi Lodha, Advocates for LIC. Ms. Abha Malhotra, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav & Mr. Tanuj Chopra, Advocates for UOI. + W.P.(C) 9440/2016 LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Mr. Surajit Bhaduri & Ms.Aakashi Lodha, Advocates for LIC. versus KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA & ORS. Through Nemo. + W.P.(C) 9442/2016 ........ RESPONDENTS LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA &ORS..... Petitioners Through Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Mr. Suraji...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on : February 25, 2019/ March 27, 2019 Decided on : April 02, 2019 + CRL.A. 143/2018 & Crl.M.A. 2262/2018 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC with Mohammed Faraz & Ms. Mallika Hiremath, Advs. versus AXIS BANK & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Shri Singh, Advocate with Mr. Pradyumna Sharma, Ms. Maneka Khanna & Ms. Sayali Kadu, Advocates for R-1. CRL.A. 210/2018 & Crl.M.A. 3233/2018 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC with Mohammed Faraz & Ms. Mallika Hiremath, Advs. versus STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate for R-1. + Crl. Appeal No.143/2018 & others Page 1 of 105 + CRL.A. 623/2018 & Crl.M.A. 10886-87/2018, 48245/2018 DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC with Mohammed Faraz & Ms. Mallika Hiremath, Advs. vers...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
G. George Paracken: 1. All these five Original Applications are almost identical and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. Facts in them which are necessary for their adjudication are detailed hereunder:- OA 4219/2011 The applicant is aggrieved by the impugned Annexure A-1 show cause notice dated 14.3.2011 and the impugned Annexure A-2 order dated 11.5.2011 passed by the respondents. By the aforesaid show cause notice, he was called upon to explain as to why his candidature for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police should not be cancelled. The reasons given for the same are as follows:- Scrutiny of your Application Form and Attestation Form filled up by you revealed that you had disclosed in the relevant columns of both the forms about the facts of your involvement in criminal case FIR No.39/2007, dated 15.02.2007 U/s 143/323/341 IPC, PS Laxmangarh, Distt. Alwar (Rajasthan) in which you had been acquitted by the Court vide order dated 04.12.2009 as both the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1987]61CompCas153(Delhi); [1987(54)FLR261]; (1986)IILLJ354Del
H.L. Anand, J. 1. This petition article 226 of the Constitution by a former general manager of the U.K. branches of a nationalised bank, concurrently in-charge of its European operations, assails the purported termination of his service by the Bank on the ground of 'loss of confidence' in him, as a sequel to and as part of a shake up in the higher echelons of the Bank in the wake of the largest bankruptcy of an Asian business house in the U. K., and failure of certain other accounts, allegedly exposing the Bank to the risk of loss of millions of pounds, and raises some interesting, as indeed, difficult questions of law, in relation to service in public sector, as indeed, interaction between the principles of industrial jurisprudence and administrative law following recent constitutional developments in the treatment of public sector undertaking as instrumentalities of the State under article 12 of the Constitution. Some of the questions that the petition raises are perhaps not appropri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1987]62CompCas769(Delhi)
Rajinder Sachar, C.J.1. This and the connected writ petitions challenge the constitutional validity of Chapter II-C read with section 58B (5A) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, introduced by the Banking Laws (Amendment) Act, 1983 (Act 1 of 1984) (to be called 'the impugned legislation'). They would be disposed of by this common judgment. The main averments of facts are being taken from this petition for illustrative purpose, otherwise the arguments on questions of law are all common. The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of the said Chapter, particularly section 45S read with section 58B (5A) are vocative of the petitioner1`s fundamental rights guaranteed under articles 19 and 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also challenges the legislative competence of Parliament to enact the said impugned provisions. 2. The newly incorporated section 45S of the Reserve Bank of India Act provides that no individual or firm or an unincorporated association of individu...
Tag this Judgment!