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.
Rajeev Bhatnagar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2013
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on September 19, 2013 Judgment Delivered on October 23, 2013 + W.P.(C) 5913/2011 RAJEEV BHATNAGAR ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Sachin Sharma, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Dr.Ashwani Bhardwaj, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:(a) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents quashing the adverse ACR for the period 1/1/2006 to 3/11/2006 and for the period 1.1.2007 to 31.12.2007 and direct the respondent consider the petitioners case for promotion to higher grade/rank retrospectively since his junior was promoted the petitioner to the rank of Asst. Commandant, (Exe.). (b) Quash and set aside the order of rejection of representation dated 20/08/2010 and 22.10.2010 in appeal dated 23.06.2010. (c) Pass Order directing t...
Puneet Miglani Vs. M/S Surface Finishing Equipment Co and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + I.A. No.14068/2010 (O.37 R.3(5) CPC) IN CS (OS) 1090/2010 Reserved on:9. h September, 2013 Decided on:23. d October, 2013 % PUNEET MIGLANI Through: versus ..... Plaintiff Mr. N.K. Nayyar, Advocate. M/S SURFACE FINISHING EQUIPMENT CO & ORS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. R. Singhavi, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 By this application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 (5) CPC the Defendants seek unconditional leave to defend.2. Learned counsel for the Defendants/applicants contends that as per Para-7 of the plaint it is stated that the commission of the Plaintiff was enhanced to on flat rate of 10% on all products of Defendant No.1 w.e.f. 1st November, 2005 on the basis of verbal agreement. For enforcement of the terms of verbal agreement, no suit under Order XXXVII CPC is maintainable. Further no invoices or bills of exchange have been filed thus the present suit is not maintainable under Order XXXVII CPC. The case of the Plaintiff is...
S.K.Gupta Vs. Prem Singh Dagar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2013
$-R-13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON :23. d OCTOBER, 2013 + CRL.A. 493/2003 S.K.GUPTA ..... Appellant Through : Mr.V.K.Sharma, Advocate. versus PREM SINGH DAGAR Through : ..... Respondent Mr.Anil K.Gujral, Advocate with Mr.Vikram Gujral, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.Garg, J.(Open Court) 1. S.K.Gupta has filed the present appeal to challenge the order dated 21.07.2003 whereby in Criminal Complaint No.779/2002 under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo SI for six months with fine ` 80,000/-. ` 40,000/- were directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant/ respondent No.2. The appeal was contested by respondent No.2.2. During the course of proceedings in appeal, the parties resolved to settle their dispute and compound the offence. ` 40,000/- were paid in cash today by the appellant to the complainant and appellant has no objection for the release of ` 72,538/- lying deposited with the Registrar...
Anuradha Vashisht and anr Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Decision:23. 10.2013 W.P.(C) 5598/2012 ANURADHA VASHISHT & ANR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr D.K. Rustogi and Mr B.S. Bagga, Advs. Versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondent Through: Ms Zubeda Begum, Standing Counsel for GNCTD CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(ORAL) The petitioners before this Court were appointed as members of the Child Welfare Committee and joined the aforesaid position on 16.05.2011. Vide show-cause notice dated 18.11.2011, the Department of Women and Child Welfare, referring to the Regulation of Rule 24(6) of Delhi Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rule, 2009, requiring every member of the Committee to attend minimum of six hours per sitting during the official working hours, read with Rule 24(7) of Delhi Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Amendment Rules, 2010, whereby the Members of the Child Welfare Committee are allowed half day sitting, i.e. min...
Tirath Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :22. d OCTOBER, 2013 DECIDED ON :23. d OCTOBER, 2013 + CRL.A. 290/2004 & CRL.M.A. 5340/2013 TIRATH SINGH ..... Appellant Through : Mr.Chetan Lokur, Advocate. VERSUS STATE Through : ..... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.Garg, J.The appellant Tirath Singh challenges judgment dated 1. 22.01.2004 and order on sentence dated 23.03.2004 in Sessions Case No.481/96 arising out of FIR No.80/83 PS Tuglak Road by which he was convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 395/397/398/452/450/455/347 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with total fine ` 2,200/-.2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 02.05.1983 at about 07.15 A.M. at Kothi No.31, Golf Links, he and his associates Satpal, Hem Singh, Madan Lal and Bansi Lal committed dacoity and decamped with gold ornaments and other household articles belonging to Ramesh Kohli and Sunita Kohli in a taxi No.DLT2644 Th...
Vinod Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :22. d October, 2013. DECIDED ON :23. d October, 2013. + CRL.A.310/2000 VINOD KUMAR Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Sumeet Verma, Advocate. VERSUS STATE Through : ..... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Vinod Kumar (the appellant) challenges a judgment dated 27.11.1999 in Sessions Case No.74/1995 arising out of FIR No.189/1992 registered at Police Station Shahdara by which he was convicted for committing offences punishable under Section 397 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act. By an order dated 29.11.1999 he was awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years with fine `5,000/- under Section 397 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for two years with fine `2,000/- under Section 27 Arms Act. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.2. Allegations against the appellant-Vinod were that on 03.06.1992 at about 12.10 P.M. at House No.1/7060A, Gali No.5, Vishnu Park, Shivaji Park, Delhi, he and his associates Na...
Raj Gopal Saxena Vs. Nisha Gopal Saxena and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:23. 10.2013 EFA (OS) 22 OF2013RAJ GOPAL SAXENA Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Praveen Chauhan with Mr. Vijay Kumar & Mr. Sharvan Sahny, Advs. versus NISHA GOPAL SAXENA & ANR Through: Nemo. ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI % 1. MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT(Open Court) The present appeal is directed against an order of the learned Single Judge dated 11th August, 2013 dismissing the appellants execution petition.2. The facts necessary for deciding this case are that the appellant and the respondents are brothers; they entered into a settlement on 22.5.2008 which was embodied in a compromise decree, in Suit No.179/2004. In terms of the compromise decree, the appellant was entitled to the first floor and portions above in property No.B-5/111, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. The respondents on the other hand were entitled to the ground floor thereof. In terms of the compromise, both...
Denso India Ltd Vs. Technico Industries Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2013
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:23. 10.2013 + ARB.P. 241/2013 DENSO INDIA LTD ..... Petitioner versus TECHNICO INDUSTRIES LTD ..... Respondent ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE: For the Petitioner: Mr Sonal Kumar Singh & Ms Aakanksha Singh, Advs. For the Respondents: Mr N.K. Bhardwaj, Adv. CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J1 This is a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act) for appointment of an arbitrator. Notice in this petition was issued on 31.05.2013. Since then the respondent has entered appearance and filed its reply. The petition is resisted primarily on two grounds. First, that there is no dispute obtaining between the parties. Second, that the claim for payment of interest is not covered by the arbitration agreement obtaining between the parties, which is contained in clause XXII of the agreement.2. The respondent has supplied various reasons in its reply including ...
Reena Gautam and ors. Vs. Harender Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2013
$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:23. d October, 2013 MAC.APP. 327/2013 REENA GAUTAM & ORS. .... Appellants Represented by: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. Versus HARENDER KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. Siddharth, 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 26.11.2012, whereby ld. Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.15,39,800/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.2. Instant appeal has been filed for enhancement of the compensation amount on the ground that age of the deceased at the time of accident was 31 years of age, despite that ld. Tribunal has granted 30% towards future prospects. To strengthen his arguments, ld. Counsel has relied upon a case of Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE563wherein the Apex Court has held as under:11. Since, the Court in ...
Shri NaeemuddIn Vs. Ms. Babita Rani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:23. d October, 2013 + RFA2702013 SHRI NAEEMUDDIN Through: ..... Appellant Mr. S.D. Ansari, Adv. Versus MS. BABITA RANI Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjiv Bahl, Mr. Eklavya Bahl and Mr. Vikrant Arora, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.CM No.15020/2013 (of appellant for restoration of the appeal dismissed in default on 10th September, 2013) 1. The counsel for the respondent has fairly stated that subject to the counsel for the appellant arguing the appeal today itself, he has no objection to the appeal being restored to its original position.2. The counsel for the appellant is agreeable.3. Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the application is allowed and the appeal is restored to its original position.4. The application is disposed of. RFA2702013 5. The appeal impugns the judgment and decree (dated 18th April, 2013 of the Additional District Judge (ADJ)-14, Central District, Delhi in CS...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »