Delhi Court November 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.
New India Assurance Co Ltd. Vs. Smt. Kawal Jit Kaur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2013
$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:26. h November, 2013 + MAC. APP. No.280/2012 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advocate. Versus SMT. KAWAL JIT KAUR & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.R.K.Bachchan and Mr. A. K. Mahur, Advocates for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Vide the present appeal, the appellant/Insurance Company has assailed the impugned award dated 08.12.2011, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.25,54,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum in favour of the respondents/claimants from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., 14.05.2007 till its realization.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the alleged offending vehicle bearing registration No.DL-1RG-6070 was not involved in the accident as none of the eye witnesses have proved that the acci...
Pushpawati Vs. NaraIn Prasad Gupta and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2013
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:26. h November, 2013. % + RFA2582013 PUSHPAWATI Through: ..... Appellant Mr. V.K. Sharma, Advocate. Versus NARAIN PRASAD GUPTA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Gautam Dutta, Adv. for R-1, 3, 4, 5 & 6. Mr. Karan Jain, Adv. for R-2 MCD. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. The appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 24 th November, 2012 of the Court of Additional District Judge (ADJ) (Central-07), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi of dismissal of Suit No.15/2008 filed by the appellant consequent to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908 of plaint therein, after issues had been framed and substantial evidence had been recorded in the suit.2. Notice of the appeal was issued and thereafter the appeal was admitted for hearing and the Trial Court record requisitioned. Considering the nature of the controversy, the hearing of the appeal was expedited.3. The counsel for ...
Mohd. Rahis Khan Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2013
$~ 27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 134/2005 Judgment dated 26th November, 2013 % MOHD. RAHIS KHAN .... Appellant Through: Ms.Charu Verma, Amicus Curiae versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr.Feroz Khan Ghazi, Adv. for State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. None is present on behalf of the appellant. Ms.Charu Verma, Advocate, who is present in court, is appointed as an Amicus Curiae in the matter.2. The present appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment dated 7.8.2004 and the order on sentence dated 9.8.2004 by which the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs.40,000/-, and in case of default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for four months.3. The appellant was stated to be in illegal possession of 100 grams of smack; and for the aforesaid offence, case was sent up for trial under sections 21/61/85 NDPS Act. As per the p...
Chinteshwar Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA8012012 CHINTESHWAR STEEL PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajneesh Chunni and Mr. Ajay Gulati, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Amrit Pal Singh, CGSC for R-1. Reserved on :12. h November, 2013 Date of Decision :26. h November, 2013 % CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J:1. The issue involved in the present appeal is whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction and if so, whether it should exercise it keeping in view the principles of forum conveniens.2. It is pertinent to mention that the writ petition was filed challenging the decision of the State Government granting prospecting licence to respondent No.3. However, learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 8th October, 2012 dismissed the appellants writ petition on the ground that this Court was not the convenient forum.3. Mr. Ravi Gupta, learned...
Mohd.ilyas and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :8. h NOVEMBER, 2013 DECIDED ON :26. h NOVEMBER, 2013 + CRL.A. 450/2000 MOHD.ILYAS & ANR. ....Appellants Through : Mr.K.B.Andley, Sr. Advocate with Mr.M.L.Yadav, Advocate. versus THE STATE Through : .Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Mohd. Ilyas (A-1) and Mohd.Afzal (A-2) challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 17.07.2000 in Sessions Case No.19/2000 arising out of FIR No.110/99 PS Geeta Colony convicting them under Sections 307/324/323/34 IPC. By an order dated 19.07.2000, they were sentenced to under RI for five years with fine ` 200/-, each under Section 307/34 IPC; RI for one year with fine ` 100/-, each under Section 324/34 IPC and SI for two months under Section 323/34 IPC. All the sentences were directed to operate concurrently.2. The case of the prosecution as projected in the charge-sheet was that on 13.06.1999 at 04.30 P.M. in front of House No.17/113, ...
Brij Mohan Bansal Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Decision:26. 11.2013 W.P.(C) 1209/2012 BRIJ MOHAN BANSAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr R.K. Jain, Adv versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms Anjana Gosain and Mr Pradeep, Advs for respondents 1 and 2 Ms Anusuya Salwan and Mr Vikas Sood Advs for DSIIDC CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(ORAL) Respondents 1 and 2 are unnecessary parties. Their names are accordingly deleted from the array of respondents. Late Shri Sadhu Ram Bansal, father of the petitioner, who was running a PVC Goods Manufacturing Unit at 2926/217, Vishram Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi-110035, under the name and style of Mohan Enterprises, applied to the respondents for allotment of an alternative industrial plot under their relocation scheme, whereunder the persons running an industrial unit in a non-conforming areas were to be allotted industrial plots in conforming areas and, thereafter, they were required to shut down th...
Baldev Raj Gadhok Vs. Suman Kumar Gadhok and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:26. 11.2013 + FAO (OS) 493/2013 BALDEV RAJ GADHOK .....Appellant versus SUMAN KUMAR GADHOK AND ORS. .....Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Arun Nischal. For the Respondents : Mr Sudhir Talwar for R-1 to R-4. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 26.09.2013 (hereinafter referred to as impugned order) passed by a learned Single Judge in I.A. No.17029/2012 filed in CS(OS) No.1004/2012. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed I.A. No.17029/2012 filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inter alia, seeking payment of the 1/3rd share of the monthly rent of `1,78,200/- and also the arrears of the monthly rent as received by the respondent nos.1 to 4, in respect of the property in question.2. The appellan...
State Bank of India Vs. Sh. P. N. Saluja
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2013
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:26. 11.2013 LPA7472012 & CM No.19152/2012 STATE BANK OF INDIA ....Appellant versus SH. P. N. SALUJA ....Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Mr Rajiv Kapur & Ms Vatsala Rai. For the Respondent : Respondent in person. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The appellant has preferred the present appeal impugning the order dated 10.09.2012 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in WP (C) No.1300/1988 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order) whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the said writ petition filed by the respondent and set aside the order dated 25.05.2011 passed by the Appellate Committee of the appellant. The said Appellate Committee had by the order dated 25.05.2011 rejected the appeal preferred by the respondent against his removal from service of the appellant bank o...
Rahul Gupta Vs. Mr Pratap Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2013
% THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:26. 11.2013 + FAO (OS) 183/2013 RAHUL GUPTA .....Appellant versus MR PRATAP SINGH AND ORS. .....Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Jasmeet Singh with Mr Saurabh Tiwari & Mr Kritika Mehra. For the Respondents : Mr A.P.S. Ahluwalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr S. S. Ahluwalia for R-1. Mr Rajesh Kumar for R-2. Mr Arjun Pant, Advocate for R-3. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the order dated 05.02.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in OA No.19/2011 which in turn was filed in CS(OS) No.1098/2008. The said order dated 05.02.2013 is hereinafter referred to as the impugned order.2. The learned Single Judge has, by the impugned order, set aside the order dated 14.12.2010 passed by a Joint Registrar of this Court in IA No.15286/2008 in CS(OS) No.1098/2008. T...
Anita Priyadarshini Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C) No.7853/2011 26th November, 2013 ANITA PRIYADARSHINI Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Pramod Gupta and Mr. Umakant Kataria, Advocate. VERSUS UOI & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Ms. Raman Oberoi, Sr. Panel Counsel for R-1. Mr. Aly Mirza, Adv. for R-3. Mr. S.Rajappa and Mr. Puran Chand, Advocates for R-4 and 5. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. I have heard the counsel for the parties at length. Considerable arguments were addressed by both the parties. The arguments were at the stage of reference to the letters of the Ministry of Human Resource Development dated 6.6.2013 and 11.11.2013.2. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 4 and 5/erstwhile employer-NIOS and Chairman of NIOS states that there is no reason why the respondent no.4 would not favourably consider the technical resignation of the petitioner from NIOS w.e.f 5.10.2011, of c...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »