Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: February 07, 2019 Judgment delivered on: March 06, 2019 + W.P.(C) 7996/2017 & CM APPL. 32963/2017 MR. RAJEEV KUMAR YADAV ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA AND ORS versus ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS + W.P.(C) 5052/2018 & CM APPLs. 19421/2018, 21827-28/2018 RAJEEV KUMAR YADAV ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA AND ORS. versus ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS Present: Mr. Anil Airi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ravi Krishan Chandna, Ms. Sadhana Sharma & Ms. Sukanya Lal, Advs. along with Mr. Rajiv Yadav, petitioner in person. Mr. Jayant Tripathi with Mr. Nayantara Roy & Mr. Dinesh Dahiya, Advs. for ASI. Mr. Bibhash Kumar Sharma with Mr. Atul Verma & Mr. Sanjeev Ralli, Advs. for DPCC. Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sidharth Chopra, Adv. for R-5. Mr. Dev P. Bharadwaj, CGSC with Mr. Jatin Teotia, Adv. for UOI in W.P.(C) 7996/2017. Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. T.P. Singh, Adv. for R-1, 6 & 7/UOI in W.P.(C) 5052/2018...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~12, 14 to 16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:27. h February, 2019 12 + 14 + 15 + BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED O.M.P. (COMM) 268/2016 O.M.P. (COMM) 182/2016, 267/2016, 268/2016 & 300/2016 BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. O.M.P. (COMM) 182/2016 Through: Mr. Manish ........ Petitioner Srivastava, Ms. Deboshree Mukherjee and Mr. Rahul Gupta, Advocates. (M:9971635549) versus M/S KANOHAR ELECTRICALS LTD. & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Bhuvan Gugnani, Mr. S. C. Sharma, Mr. Saurabh Soni, Mr. Kshitiz Rao, Mr. Mannat Singh, Ms. Mythili Srinivasamurhty and Mr. Aditya Shrotriya, Advocates for R-1. (M:9810126664 & 9599248485) WITH O.M.P. (COMM) 267/2016 BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED Through: Appearance not given. versus ........ Petitioner KANOHAR ELECTRICALS LIMITED & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Bhuvan Gugnani, Mr. S. C. Sharma, Mr. Saurabh Soni, Mr. Kshitiz Rao, Mr. Mannat Singh, Ms. Mythili Srinivasamurhty and Mr. Aditya Shrotriya, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Hars...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~12, 14 to 16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:27. h February, 2019 12 + 14 + 15 + BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED O.M.P. (COMM) 268/2016 O.M.P. (COMM) 182/2016, 267/2016, 268/2016 & 300/2016 BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. O.M.P. (COMM) 182/2016 Through: Mr. Manish ........ Petitioner Srivastava, Ms. Deboshree Mukherjee and Mr. Rahul Gupta, Advocates. (M:9971635549) versus M/S KANOHAR ELECTRICALS LTD. & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Bhuvan Gugnani, Mr. S. C. Sharma, Mr. Saurabh Soni, Mr. Kshitiz Rao, Mr. Mannat Singh, Ms. Mythili Srinivasamurhty and Mr. Aditya Shrotriya, Advocates for R-1. (M:9810126664 & 9599248485) WITH O.M.P. (COMM) 267/2016 BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED Through: Appearance not given. versus ........ Petitioner KANOHAR ELECTRICALS LIMITED & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Bhuvan Gugnani, Mr. S. C. Sharma, Mr. Saurabh Soni, Mr. Kshitiz Rao, Mr. Mannat Singh, Ms. Mythili Srinivasamurhty and Mr. Aditya Shrotriya, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Hars...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~12, 14 to 16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:27. h February, 2019 12 + 14 + 15 + BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED O.M.P. (COMM) 268/2016 O.M.P. (COMM) 182/2016, 267/2016, 268/2016 & 300/2016 BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. O.M.P. (COMM) 182/2016 Through: Mr. Manish ........ Petitioner Srivastava, Ms. Deboshree Mukherjee and Mr. Rahul Gupta, Advocates. (M:9971635549) versus M/S KANOHAR ELECTRICALS LTD. & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Bhuvan Gugnani, Mr. S. C. Sharma, Mr. Saurabh Soni, Mr. Kshitiz Rao, Mr. Mannat Singh, Ms. Mythili Srinivasamurhty and Mr. Aditya Shrotriya, Advocates for R-1. (M:9810126664 & 9599248485) WITH O.M.P. (COMM) 267/2016 BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED Through: Appearance not given. versus ........ Petitioner KANOHAR ELECTRICALS LIMITED & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Bhuvan Gugnani, Mr. S. C. Sharma, Mr. Saurabh Soni, Mr. Kshitiz Rao, Mr. Mannat Singh, Ms. Mythili Srinivasamurhty and Mr. Aditya Shrotriya, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Hars...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~12, 14 to 16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:27. h February, 2019 12 + 14 + 15 + BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED O.M.P. (COMM) 268/2016 O.M.P. (COMM) 182/2016, 267/2016, 268/2016 & 300/2016 BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. O.M.P. (COMM) 182/2016 Through: Mr. Manish ........ Petitioner Srivastava, Ms. Deboshree Mukherjee and Mr. Rahul Gupta, Advocates. (M:9971635549) versus M/S KANOHAR ELECTRICALS LTD. & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Bhuvan Gugnani, Mr. S. C. Sharma, Mr. Saurabh Soni, Mr. Kshitiz Rao, Mr. Mannat Singh, Ms. Mythili Srinivasamurhty and Mr. Aditya Shrotriya, Advocates for R-1. (M:9810126664 & 9599248485) WITH O.M.P. (COMM) 267/2016 BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED Through: Appearance not given. versus ........ Petitioner KANOHAR ELECTRICALS LIMITED & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Bhuvan Gugnani, Mr. S. C. Sharma, Mr. Saurabh Soni, Mr. Kshitiz Rao, Mr. Mannat Singh, Ms. Mythili Srinivasamurhty and Mr. Aditya Shrotriya, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Hars...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* % + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:22. d February, 2019. CS(COMM) 1246/2018 & IAs No.16056/2018 (u/O XXXIX R- 1&2 CPC) & 16060/2018 (u/O II R-2 CPC) LIBERTY HOUSE GROUP PTE LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Krishendu Datta, Ms. Sweta Kabra, Mr. Aly Mirza & Ms. Priya Agarwal, Advs. Versus STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Bhatt & Mr. Sumit Nagpal, Advs. for D-1&4. AND CS(COMM) 1247/2018 & IAs No.16061/2018 (u/O XXXIX R- 1&2 CPC) & 16065/2018 (u/O II R-2 CPC) LIBERTY HOUSE GROUP PTE LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Krishendu Datta, Ms. Sweta Kabra, Mr. Aly Mirza & Ms. Priya Agarwal, Advs. Versus STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Abhinav Vasisht, Sr. Advs. with Ms. Misha, Mr. Vaijayant Paliwal and Ms. Charu Bansal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW The application of the plaintiff in both t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2357 OF2017GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....APPELLANT(S) UNION OF INDIA VERSUS WITH .....RESPONDENT(S) CONT. PETITION (CIVIL) No.175 OF2016IN WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.539 OF1986CIVIL APPEAL No.2360 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.2359 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.2363 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.2362 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.2358 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.2361 OF2017CRIMINAL APPEAL No.277 OF2017AND CIVIL APPEAL No.2364 OF20172 JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.Prologue All these appeals arise out of the judgment dated August 04, 2016 rendered by the High Court of Delhi in writ petitions filed before it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We would refer to the subject matter of those writ petitions and the manner in which the High Court dealt with and decided the same at the appropriate stage. However, it would be pertinent to point out that in the said impugned judgment, main issue related to the status of National Capital Terri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.99 OF2018Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ..Petitioners Union of India & Ors. VERSUS WITH ..Respondents WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.100 OF2018WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.115 OF2018WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.459 OF2018WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.598 OF2018WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.775 OF2018WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.822 OF2018WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.849 OF2018WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.1221 OF2018SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.28623 OF2018WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.37 OF20191 JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1. The present petitions assail the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [Insolvency Code or Code].. Since we are deciding only questions relating to the constitutional validity of the Code, we are not going into the individual facts of any case.2. Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Advocate, appearing in Writ Petition (Civil) No.99 of 2018, has first...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:3. d December, 2018 Pronounced on: January 16, 2019 W.P.(C) 7154/2017 CHITTARANJAN SAHU & ORS ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. UNION OF INDIA & ORS versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGSC with Mr. Varun Pathak, Mr. Farman Ali and Mr. Kunal Bhargava, Advocates for R-UOI. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA JUDGMENT SANJEEV NARULA, J1... Petitioners who retired as Sergeants from Indian Air Force have been denied re-employment/up-gradation to the rank of Sub Inspector/ Junior Aircraft Mechanic (SI/JAM) in BSF. Aggrieved with the deprival, they have approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and inter-alia seek writ of certiorari for quashing the rejection orders issued by... RESPONDENTS. Factual background 2.... Petitioners No.1 to 7 were enrolled with Indian Air Force (hereinafter referred to as IAF) w.e.f 10.07.1987, 02.03.1989, 12.08.1989, 13.1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) NO.85 OF2015REPORTABLE TELANGANA JUDGES ASSOCIATION & ANR. ... PETITIONERS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1017010173 0F2018(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C)NOS.1878718790 OF2016 WITH STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR. ... APPELLANTS VERSUS SARASANI SATYAM & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.Leave granted.2. The bifurcation of lower judiciary by State wise strength of combined State of Andhra Pradesh, consequent to the Andhra Pradesh Reorgnisation Act, 2014 is the issue which has arisen in these two cases which have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. Facts: Writ Petition (C) No.85 of 2015 3. The writ petition has been filed by the Telangana Judges Association, a registered forum, formed to protect the interest of the Judicial Officers of State of Telangana. The 2 petitioner has challenged the recruitment process initiated by the High court of the Judicatu...
Tag this Judgment!