Delhi Court October 2013 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Lucknow Varanasi Tollways Pvt Ltd Vs. National Highways Authority of I ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-2013
$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:24. 10.2013 + O.M.P. 1216/2012 LUCKNOW VARANASI TOLLWAYS PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Amar Dave, Mr Chirag M. Sheriff & Mr Abhishek Singh, Advs. versus NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr Ramesh Singh, Ms Anne Mathew & Ms Megha Mukherjee, Advs. for R-1. Mr N.S. Yadav, proxy counsel for Mr Ajant Kumar, Adv. for R-3/ Corporation Bank. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J (ORAL) 1. After some arguments it has come to light that the petitioner has approached this court based on a letter dated 18.12.2012 issued by respondent No.1.2. In so far as the letter dated 18.12.2012 is concerned, respondent No.1 has requested the petitioner to furnish the performance security, amounting to Rs. 52.18 crores, in respect of the project in issue, by 22.12.2012. Respondent No.1 has also put the petitioner to notice that the petitioner should not link the submission of ...
Suresh Kumar Verma Vs. Dilip Kumar Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-2013
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:24. h October, 2013 % + RFA2682013 & CM No.8499/2013 (for stay). SURESH KUMAR VERMA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Chandra Shekher Yadav, Adv. versus DILIP KUMAR GUPTA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajkumar Jain, Adv. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J1 The appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 23 rd March, 2013 of the learned Addl. District Judge-03 (East), Delhi for recovery of Rs.4 lacs with interest and costs against the appellant pursuant to dismissal of the application filed by the appellant for leave to defend the suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC filed by the respondent.2. Notice of the appeal was issued and the Trial Court record requisitioned and subject to the appellant depositing the entire decretal amount in this Court, execution was stayed. In compliance of the said direction, a sum of Rs.4,30,000/- has been deposited which has been kept in a fixed deposit.3. The appeal was lis...
Pritam Chauhan Vs. the State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :1. t October, 2013 DECIDED ON :24. h October, 2013 + CRL.A.640/2001 PRITAM CHAUHAN Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Sudhir Batra, Advocate. versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Pritam Chauhan (the appellant) has questioned the legality of the judgment dated 25.08.2001 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.28/2000 arising out of FIR No.221/1999 registered at Police Station Sarita Vihar by which he was convicted under Section 307 IPC and awarded RI for three years with fine `1,000/-. The facts emerging from the record of the case are as under:2. On 18.05.1999 at about 07.15 P.M. near Madanpur Khadar, Pritam Chauhan inflicted injuries with a knife to Sunder Singh in an attempt to murder him. The police machinery came into motion after recording Daily Diary (DD) No.43B (Ex.PW-10/A) at 07.45 P.M. at Police Station Sarita Vihar ab...
Mohd Saleem Vs. Adarsh Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-2013
$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:24. h October, 2013 % + MAC.APP. 258/2011 MOHD SALEEM ..... Appellant Represented By: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv. versus ADARSH KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented By: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv. for R3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 13.10.2010 whereby, ld. Tribunal has granted compensation as under:1.2. 3.4. 5.6.7. Compensation towards pain and suffering Loss of Amenities Loss of earning due to injury (for 8 months) Future loss in earning capacity due to disability Expenses towards medical Bills Compensation towards conveyance and special diet (without bills) : : Rs.70,000/Rs.50,000/- : Rs.28,000/- : Rs.2,36,250/- : Rs.28,105/- : Rs.15,000/- Attendant Charges 8. (four months) : Reasonable medical expenses (without bills) : Rs.16,000/Rs.10,000/- Therefore, in my considered opinion the petitioner is entitled for Rs.4,5...
Kamal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :23. d October, 2013 DECIDED ON :24. h October, 2013 + CRL.A. 288/2000 PRAMOD KUMAR ..... Appellant Through : Mr.Atul Verma, Advocate. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. + CRL.A. 262/2000 KAMAL ..... Appellant Through : Mr.M.L.Yadav, Advocate. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Pramod Kumar (A-1) and Kamal (A-2) impugn a judgment dated 28.02.2000 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.138/91, 45/92 & 146/91 arising out of FIR No.149/91 registered at Police Station Badarpur by which A-1 and A-2 were held guilty for committing offences under Sections 397/392/34 IPC and 25 Arms Act and under Section 392/34 IPC respectively. By an order dated 29.02.2000, A-1 and A-2 were awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years with fine `6,000/- and Rigorous Imprisonment for five years with fine `3,000/respectively. The facts em...
Pramod Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :23. d October, 2013 DECIDED ON :24. h October, 2013 + CRL.A. 288/2000 PRAMOD KUMAR ..... Appellant Through : Mr.Atul Verma, Advocate. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. + CRL.A. 262/2000 KAMAL ..... Appellant Through : Mr.M.L.Yadav, Advocate. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Pramod Kumar (A-1) and Kamal (A-2) impugn a judgment dated 28.02.2000 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.138/91, 45/92 & 146/91 arising out of FIR No.149/91 registered at Police Station Badarpur by which A-1 and A-2 were held guilty for committing offences under Sections 397/392/34 IPC and 25 Arms Act and under Section 392/34 IPC respectively. By an order dated 29.02.2000, A-1 and A-2 were awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years with fine `6,000/- and Rigorous Imprisonment for five years with fine `3,000/respectively. The facts em...
Ge Capital Services India Vs. Deccan Chronicles Holding Pvt Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-2013
$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:24. 10.2013 + O.M.P. 1097/2012 GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA ..... Petitioner Through: Ms Deepika V. Marwah & Ms P.s. Themthingla, Advs. versus DECCAN CHRONICLES HOLDING PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J (ORAL) OMP10972012 & IA No.13395/2013 [u/s 9(ii)(d) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996].1. In so far as the main petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act) is concerned, notice was issued on 26.11.2012. Since the respondent was represented on that date, time was granted to it to file a reply within two weeks. The respondent was also directed to indicate in its reply the status of the three (3) machines in issue, which the petitioner had given on hire to the respondent. Furthermore, the respondent was directed to maintain status quo in relation to the said three (3) machines and not to create any c...
Praveen Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:24. 10.2013 + CRL.REV.P. 694/2009 PRAVEEN KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajiv Thukral, Adv. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP for State. Mr. R.N. Gugulani, Adv. for complainant. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL VEENA BIRBAL, J.1. This is a revision petition under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. wherein challenge has been made to impugned judgment dated 4.12.2009 passed by learned ASJ, Delhi whereby the learned Appellate Court has altered the order of conviction passed by learned MM under Section 326 IPC to one under Section 324 IPC and vide same judgment the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner has been reduced from one year RI to six months in Crl. Appeal No.110/2009/2010.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.1.1993 at about 3.25 p.m. injured Vinod Sherawat PW3 along with his classmate one Prem Parkash PW4 came to the police station in an injured posi...
Amy Antoinette Mcgregor and anr Vs. Directorate of Family Welfare Govt ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C)6332/2013 AMY ANTOINETTE MCGREGOR & ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Karan S. Thakur, Advocate with Mr. Vikrant Goyal, Advocate. Versus DIRECTORATE OF FAMILY WELFARE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Ms.Nidhi Raman, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Ms.Shipra Shukla, Advocate for Respondent No.2. % Judgment Reserved on: October 04, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: October 24 , 2013 CORAM: HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT : CHIEF JUSTICE1 This writ petition is filed by two petitioners, residents of Sydney, Australia. The first petitioner is the wife and the second is the husband. It appears that due to some medical problem the first petitioner cannot physically conceive a child. After medical examination by best doctors and taking medical advice, they found that the cause is some Lupusand it is an Immuno-Suppressive Stipulation which does not physically and practically allow the embryos of the...
Mohan Lal Vs. Hotel Marina
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-2013
$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2939/2008 Decided on 24th October, 2013 MOHAN LAL ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Anuj Sharma, Adv. Versus HOTEL MARINA ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Alok Bhasin, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK A.K. PATHAK, J.(ORAL) 1 Petitioner was working with the respondent as a Waiter. One foreign guest Mr. Mathew stayed in the hotel in Room No.224 on 3 rd and 4th January, 1994. When he was checking out, Front Office Manager Mr. R.K. Dhar asked him to clear his bills regarding tea and drinks along with the room tariff at which Mr. Mathew became angry and said that he had already paid cash in respect of bills to the Waiter, who had served him tea and drinks. Executive Manager Ms. Nalini Malhotra was informed and she also came there. Mr. Mathew told her same version. He stuck to his stand that he had paid money to the Waiter(petitioner).2. Charge-sheet was served on the petitioner regarding this incident as he was on duty of room s...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »