Court : Delhi
A$~40. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: Judgment delivered on: % + 21.05.2013 15.07.2013 W.P.(C.) No. 883/2010 (Arising out of award dated 24.10.2009 in ID No.06/2005) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus DHEER SINGH Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate. W.P.(C) 6499/2010 (Arising out of award dated 21.05.2010 in ID No.1292/2004) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate. W.P.(C) 6501/2010 (Arising out of award dated 21.05.2010 in ID No.10/2005) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus SUNITA SHARMA Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate. W.P.(C) 6514/2010 (Arising out of award dated 21.05.2010 in ID No.1293/2004) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus NARAYAN JHA Through: ..... ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
A$~40. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: Judgment delivered on: % + 21.05.2013 15.07.2013 W.P.(C.) No. 883/2010 (Arising out of award dated 24.10.2009 in ID No.06/2005) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus DHEER SINGH Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate. W.P.(C) 6499/2010 (Arising out of award dated 21.05.2010 in ID No.1292/2004) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate. W.P.(C) 6501/2010 (Arising out of award dated 21.05.2010 in ID No.10/2005) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus SUNITA SHARMA Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate. W.P.(C) 6514/2010 (Arising out of award dated 21.05.2010 in ID No.1293/2004) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus NARAYAN JHA Through: ..... ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
A$~40. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: Judgment delivered on: % + 21.05.2013 15.07.2013 W.P.(C.) No. 883/2010 (Arising out of award dated 24.10.2009 in ID No.06/2005) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus DHEER SINGH Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate. W.P.(C) 6499/2010 (Arising out of award dated 21.05.2010 in ID No.1292/2004) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate. W.P.(C) 6501/2010 (Arising out of award dated 21.05.2010 in ID No.10/2005) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus SUNITA SHARMA Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate. W.P.(C) 6514/2010 (Arising out of award dated 21.05.2010 in ID No.1293/2004) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus NARAYAN JHA Through: ..... ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
A$~40. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: Judgment delivered on: % + 21.05.2013 15.07.2013 W.P.(C.) No. 883/2010 (Arising out of award dated 24.10.2009 in ID No.06/2005) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus DHEER SINGH Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate. W.P.(C) 6499/2010 (Arising out of award dated 21.05.2010 in ID No.1292/2004) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate. W.P.(C) 6501/2010 (Arising out of award dated 21.05.2010 in ID No.10/2005) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus SUNITA SHARMA Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate. W.P.(C) 6514/2010 (Arising out of award dated 21.05.2010 in ID No.1293/2004) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus NARAYAN JHA Through: ..... ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
A$~40. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: Judgment delivered on: % + 21.05.2013 15.07.2013 W.P.(C.) No. 883/2010 (Arising out of award dated 24.10.2009 in ID No.06/2005) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus DHEER SINGH Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate. W.P.(C) 6499/2010 (Arising out of award dated 21.05.2010 in ID No.1292/2004) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate. W.P.(C) 6501/2010 (Arising out of award dated 21.05.2010 in ID No.10/2005) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus SUNITA SHARMA Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate. W.P.(C) 6514/2010 (Arising out of award dated 21.05.2010 in ID No.1293/2004) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus NARAYAN JHA Through: ..... ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
A$~40. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: Judgment delivered on: % + 21.05.2013 15.07.2013 W.P.(C.) No. 883/2010 (Arising out of award dated 24.10.2009 in ID No.06/2005) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus DHEER SINGH Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate. W.P.(C) 6499/2010 (Arising out of award dated 21.05.2010 in ID No.1292/2004) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate. W.P.(C) 6501/2010 (Arising out of award dated 21.05.2010 in ID No.10/2005) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus SUNITA SHARMA Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate. W.P.(C) 6514/2010 (Arising out of award dated 21.05.2010 in ID No.1293/2004) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus NARAYAN JHA Through: ..... ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:19.06.2013 CORAM; THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJ.W.P.NO.22872 OF2008and M.P.No.1 of 2008 S.Premanand ..Petitioner vs 1.The Commissioner of Fisheries DMS Camp Chennai 600 006 2.The Joint Director of Fisheries (Regional) Thoothukudi 3.The Assistant Director of Fisheries Aqua Culture Nagercoil ..Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the fiRs.respondent to appoint the petitioner in any suitable vacancy and regularize the service from the date of initial appointment in accordance to law. for petitioner :Ms.Malarvizhi Udayakumar for respondents :Mr.R.Vijayakumar Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3 ORDER This writ petition was filed by S.Premanand seeking a prayer for issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the fiRs.respondent-Commissioner of Fisheries, DMS Camp, Chennai 600 006 to appoint the petitioner in any suitable vacancy and thereafte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HONOURABLE Sr.JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE S.V.BHATT A.S.No.3720 of 1992 dated:11-06-2013 The State of Andhra Pradesh,Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department,Secretariat, Hyderabad..Appellant Mohd. Muntazuddin Khan, died per LRs...Respondent Counsel for the appellant: Advocate-General Counsel for the Respondent: Sr.A. Ravinder Reddy HEAD NOTE: ?.Cases referred THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE S.V.BHATT A.S No.3720 of 1992 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble Sr.Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) The sole defendant in O.S.No.35 of 1984, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Medak, filed by the sole plaintiff, the deceased 1st respondent herein; approached this Court, feeling aggrieved by the decree dated 18-04-1991 passed in the said suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to, as arrayed in the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of recovery of possession of an extent of 1649 acres of land in diffe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson: 1. The comprehensive impugned tariff order for Wind Energy dated 31.7.2012 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Commission is challenged in these Appeals by different parties. 2. Beta Wind Farm Private Limited has filed the Appeal No.197 of 2012, Indian Wind Power Association has filed Appeal No.198 of 2012. The various Associations of Spinning Mills have filed the Appeal Nos 200, 208 of 2012 and 6 of 2013. Indian Wind Turbine Manufacturers Association has filed the Appeal No.201 of 2012. 3. Beta Wind Farm Private Limited, the Appellant in Appeal No.197 of 2012 is a Wind Energy Generator. 4. Indian Wind Power Associations, the Appellant in Appeal No.198 of 2012 is an Association of Wind Energy Generators. Indian Wind Turbine Manufacturers Association, the Appellant in Appeal No.201 of 2012 is an Association of manufacturers of Wind Turbines. 5. The various Associations of Spinning Mills who are the Appellants in Appeal No.200, 208 of 2012 and 6 of 2013 have...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P. (Crl.) No.401/2013 Reserved on :15. h April, 2013 Date of order :03. May, 2013 SAJID ALI ..... Petitioner Through Nemo Versus STATE & ORS. Through .... Respondents Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA GITA MITTAL, J 1.The above criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuance of a writ for quashing the order dated 15th December, 2012 and 17th January, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the petitioners revision petition for his failure to pay the entire arrears of maintenance as a pre-condition for entertainment of the petition. It is contended that this pre-condition is imposed pursuant to a decision of a learned Single Judge of this court which is also challenged herein. The respondent no.2 before us is the first wife of the present petitioner, while respondent n...
Tag this Judgment!