Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * + W.P. (C) 4214/2017, CM APPL.18452, 28395 & 38814/2017 Judgment reserved on:27. 02.2018 Judgment pronounced on:17. 07.2018 TECHNOCRATS ADVISORY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mani Gupta, Mr. Sanjeevi, Ms. Aakashi Lodha and Mr. Sashidhar S., Advocates. Versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH: THE MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Vikas Mahajan, CGSC with Mr. Shyam Sundar and Mr. Deepak Goyal, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.Prefatory Facts:1. This is a writ petition in which the petitioner seeks, principally, two reliefs: (i) First, that its name be substituted in respect of the seven projects which have been referred to in paragraph 8 of the writ petition. W.P.(C) No.4214/2017 Page 1 of 22 (ii) Second, that a direction be issued to the respondent to substitute its name in place of an entity known as M.C. Consulting in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % SHAYAM SUNDER FAO No.399/2017 16th October, 2017 Through: Mr. Manohar Lal, Advocate. ..... Appellant versus KOTAK SECURITIES LTD. ..... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. YES VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. Appl. No.37308/2017 (for exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. FAO No.399/2017 1. This first appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) impugns the judgment of the court below dated 18.7.2017 which has dismissed the objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act. Objections have been dismissed not only on the ground that they were time barred but also on merits. FAO No.399/2017 Page 1 of 6 2. In my opinion, once the objections are filed beyond limitation, then the Court cannot go into the merits of the matter and objections which are time barred...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~26 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 12/2017 and IA Nos. 1004/2017, 4716/2017 & 4749/2017 ANURADHA SA INVESTMENTS LLC & ANR. ........ Petitioners Through: Mr Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate with Mr Samir Malik, Ms Shivangi Vaid Seth, Advocates alongwith Ms Divya Sharma, AR of the petitioners. and Mr Sourabh versus PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LIMITED & ORS......... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr P. V. Kapur, Senior Advocate with Mr Vijay Nair, Mr Manoranjan Sharma, Mr Vimal Nagrath, Mr Sidharth Kapur, Ms Pratibha Sridhar, Ms Kaveri Gupta and Ms Divya Kapur, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER2004.2017 % VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The above captioned petition has been filed for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement dated 03.06.2016 (hereafter the Settlement Agreement). It is the petitioners case that the Settlement Agreement has been arrived at pursuant to conciliation proceedings under Sections under Part III of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (here...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2328/2007 V.VIKRAMAN ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Rajeev Sharma with Mr. Kanishka Gaur, Advocates versus UOI & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr.Shambhu Chaturvedi & Mr. B.V.Niren, Advocates for respondents No.1 to 4 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA % INDIRA BANERJEE, J.(ORAL) JUDGMENT0202.2017 In this petition, the petitioner has challenged an order of punishment dated 25.10.2005 whereby the petitioner has been awarded the punishment of reduction to the lowest stage in the time scale of pay for a period of two years with further directions that he would not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and that the reduction would have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay. WP(C) 2328/2007 page 1 of 9 On or about 5.11.1993, the petitioner joined the Special Service Bureau (SSB) under the Cabinet Secretariat ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
G. Rohini, C.J. 1. Though based on different set of facts, the controversy in all the petitions centers on common issues relating to the exercise of legislative power and executive control in the administration of National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD). 2. The parties to the writ petitions and the orders impugned have been set out in the following Table so as to get a glimpse of the controversy involved in each writ petition. Sl.No.Writ PetitionPartiesImpugned order/action1.W.P.(C) No.5888/2015GNCTD vs. UOINotifications dated 21.05.2015 and 23.07.2014 issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs empowering the Lt. Governor to exercise the powers in respect of matters connected with 'Services' and directing the ACB Police Station not to take cognizance of offences against officials of Central Government.2.W.P.(C) No.7887/2015Rajender Prashad vs. GNCTD and Ors.Notification dated 11.08.2015 issued by the Directorate of Vigilance, GNCTD under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:9. h October, 2013 % + WP (C) No.4770/2012 & CM Nos. 9869/2012 (for stay), 11129/2012 (for impleadment), 16545/2012 (for intervention/impleadment), 16845/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment), 16882/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment) DELHI HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR. ......Petitioners Through: Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Shyam Sharma, Mr.Mohit Gupta, Mr.Amit Saxena, Ms. Laxmi Chauhan, Advs. Mr.J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Mathur, P-2 in WP (C) No.4770/2012 in person and Ms. Sandhya Gupta & Mr.Ritesh Singh, Advs. Mr. Amit Khemka, Adv. with Ms. Sanorita D. Bharali, Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Advs. for New Delhi Bar Association, Rohini Bar Association & Dwarka Bar Association for applicants in CM Nos.16545/2012, 16845/2012 & 16882/2012. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ......Respondents Through : Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Nakul Dewan, Mr. J.M. Kalia, Mr. Raghav Shankar & Ms.Bhawna Garg, Advs. for Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:9. h October, 2013 % + WP (C) No.4770/2012 & CM Nos. 9869/2012 (for stay), 11129/2012 (for impleadment), 16545/2012 (for intervention/impleadment), 16845/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment), 16882/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment) DELHI HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR. ......Petitioners Through: Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Mohit Gupta, Mr.Amit Saxena, Ms. Laxmi Chauhan, Advs. Mr.J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Mathur, P-2 in WP (C) No.4770/2012 in person and Ms. Sandhya Gupta & Mr.Ritesh Singh, Advs. Mr. Amit Khemka, Adv. with Ms. Sanorita D. Bharali, Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Advs. for New Delhi Bar Association, Rohini Bar Association & Dwarka Bar Association for applicants in CM Nos.16545/2012, 16845/2012 & 16882/2012. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ......Respondents Through : Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Nakul Dewan, Mr. J.M. Kalia, Mr. Raghav Shankar & Ms.Bhawna Garg, Advs. for Govt. of NCT of Delh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
G. George Paracken: 1. This Original Application has been filed by the applicant Shri K.K. Maheshwari, who is an IPS Officer of 1980 batch, belonging to the AGMUT Cadre and is presently posted as Director General (Home Guards), GNCT, Delhi. His grievance is against the impugned Annexure A-1 order dated 11.09.2012 transferring him from Delhi to Arunachal Pradesh as Director General of Police and the impugned Annexure A-2 order dated 25.09.2012 by which his representation has been rejected by the respondents. 2. According to the applicant, he has already been posted at two hard stations in the North-East, one in Arunachal Pradesh from 1984 to 1986 and then from 2008 to 2011 in Mizoram. Thus he spent three years in the hard areas as against the stipulated period of two years for officers in suppertime scale and above. He came back to Delhi from Mizoram only in March, 2011 and within less than a year, he is again transferred out of Delhi to Arunachal Pradesh causing great hardship to him. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
S. RAVINDRA BHAT 1. The Constitution makers fervently hoped to usher a society committed to equality, where barriers of race, gender, domicile, descent and the unforgiving marginalization of a large section of the society as a result of the ills of the caste system and the practise of untouchability, would eventually be eliminated. The commitment has remained largely an unrealized promise. The strategy of the State to bridge the social gulf through affirmative action has thrown up constant challenges which Courts are called upon to resolve. This is one such challenge, where the Court has to grapple with the interpretation of Articles 341 and 342 read with Article 16, in the context of differing standards of what is the permissible reservation standard applicable on the one hand to residents of states who take up residence in one state, as opposed to residents of states who take up residence in Union territories. This judgment seeks to answer a reference made to the Full Bench, constit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
SANJIV KHANNA, J: 1. These four appeals by Harpreet Singh, Satyender Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Munish Kumar impugn the judgment dated 17th August, 2009 in Case No. 10/2004 arising out of FIR No. 247/2003 and the order of sentence dated 22nd August, 2009. The appellants Harpreet Singh and Satyender Singh have been convicted under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) and all the appellants-accused have been convicted under Section 394/366/34 IPC. Kuldeep Singh and Munish Kumar were also tried for charge under Section 376(2)(g) IPC, but have been acquitted. State has not preferred any appeal against the said acquittal. 2. The appellants-Harpreet Singh and Satyender Singh have been awarded life imprisonment for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) and directed to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for nine months. For the offence under Section 394 IPC, the appellants have been awarded life imprisonment and...
Tag this Judgment!