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.
Smt. Bhagwati Vs. Smt. Laxmi Devi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2013
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:26. h November, 2013 % + RFA No.550/2013 SMT. BHAGWATI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Manish Batra, Adv. versus SMT. LAXMI DEVI AND ANOTHER Through: None. ..... Respondents CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. The appeal impugns the judgment and preliminary decree for partition dated 4th October, 2013 of the Court of Additional District Judge 09,Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Civil Suit No.704/2008 (Unique case I.D. No.02401C0467672003) filed by the two respondents.2. Though this first appeal is listed today before this Court for the first time and is ordinarily required to be considered after requisitioning the trial court record and issuing notice to the respondents but prima facie not finding any merit in the appeal and not finding any need to follow the routine procedure merely to pay lip service thereto, the counsel for the appellant has been heard in extenso.3. The respondent No.1 Smt....
Ashish Services Vs. State 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 + CRL.M.C. 305/2013 ASHISH SERVICES Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. M.A. Niyazi and Mr.Manish Kumar, Advocates versus STATE & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Navin K. Jha, APP for the State. None for R-2 & 3. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) for setting aside the order dated 6th October, 2012 passed in complaint under Section 138 NI Act, being C.C. No.7770/2002 titled as M/s Ashish Services v. Laxmi Petroleum pending in the Court of Ms. Ankita Lal, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts, Delhi whereby application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioner/complainant was dismissed.2. The petitioner is a partnership firm which was running a petrol pump at 31/3 Village Behloolpur Khaddar, outer ring road, opposite ISBT Sarai Kale Khan, Delhi in the name of M/s As...
Ananda D.V. Vs. State Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2013
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DATE OF DECISION:26. h NOVEMBER, 2013 BAIL APPLN. 1815/2013 ANANDA D.V. Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Avi Singh and Mr. Aditya V. Singh, Advocates versus STATE NCT OF DELHI Through ..... Respondent Ms. Fizani Hussain, APP Mr. Puneet Mittal, Advocate for the complainant along with the complainant in person CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. This is an application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail filed on behalf of the applicant Ananda D.V. in FIR No.455/2013 u/s 376/380 IPC, PS Safdarjung Enclave.2. It is submitted by Sh. Avi Singh, Advocate for the petitioner that as part of applicants regular duties, he had to work with a vendor of Maruti Suzuki India Limited-NIIT Evolve, whose offices are at Gurgaon. During meetings in Vasant Kunj, office of Maruti Suzuki in Gurgaon the applicant, aged about 28 years, met the complainant aged about 35 years. After two months of regular interaction, their friendship deve...
Navneet Madaan Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2013
R-118 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.7776/1999 26th November, 2013 % NAVNEET MADAAN Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, Advocate Versus UOI AND ORS. Through: Respondents Mr. Jagat Arora, Advocate CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the orders passed by the departmental authorities; of the disciplinary authority dated 27.3.1998 and appellate authority dated 8.3.1999; whereby petitioner has been imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement.2. Before adverting to the arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioner it is necessary to state that a scope of hearing in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders passed by the departmental authorities is limited. This Court does not sit as an Appellate Court to reappraise the findings and conclusions...
Raj Singh @ Raju and ors. Vs. the State Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2013
$~ R-1A * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 115/2005 % Judgment dated 26.11.2013 RAJ SINGH @ RAJU & ORS. ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Sonal Kumar Singh, Amicus Curiae versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Feroz Khan Ghazi, Adv. for State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9.12.2004 and order on sentence dated 10.12.2004 by which the appellants have been convicted to undergo R.I. for 7 years along with fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 395 IPC.2. It is pointed out by counsel for the State that the appellant no.1, Raj Singh has expired and the appeal qua him has been rendered infructuous.3. The story of the prosecution as noticed by the trial court is as under:In the intervening night of 8/9.12.99, at about 2.30 am, Sh. Sheoraj Singh alongwith his family was sleeping in his house in village Mukandpur. ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sudhir Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2013
$~52 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:26. h November, 2013 + INCOME TAX APPEAL No.575/2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Mr. Rohit Madan, Sr. Standing Counsel for Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal. Versus SUDHIR JAIN ..... Respondent Through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL): We feel that the order of the tribunal is just and fair. Rs.20 cores was surrendered as undisclosed income at the time of search and it was agreed that the tax liability should be paid as set out in the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) of Virendara Kumar Gupta. The said statement has been reproduced in the impugned order passed by the tribunal. Subsequently, affidavit of Sarad Jain was filed on 15th May, 2009 wherein the undisclosed income of Rs.20 crores was duly maintained and accepted. The disclosure was bifurcated into Rs.7.50 crores, as on account of d...
Ramesh Kr. Dogra Vs. P.O. Labour Court-i and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2013
$~R-241 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6199/2002 Decided on 26th November, 2013 RAMESH KR. DOGRA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Som Dutta Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Mr. Amandeep Singh and Ms. Garima Bhardwaj, Advs. versus P.O. LABOUR COURT-I & ANR. Through: None. ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK A.K. PATHAK, J (ORAL) 1. Aggrieved by the Award dated 4th February, 2002 of the Labour Court No.I, Delhi petitioner-workman has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned Award Industrial Adjudicator has held that petitioner had not completed 240 days of service, inasmuch as, his services were terminated during the probation period without casting any stigma on him, thus, petitioner was not entitled to any relief.2. Secretary (Labour), Govt. of NCT of Delhi referred the disputes to the Labour Court for adjudication in the following terms :- Whether the services of Sh.Ramesh Kumar Dogra have been term...
Amardeep Dabas Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.1250/2013 & CM No.2369/2013 Date of decision :26. h November, 2013 AMARDEEP DABAS Through ..... Petitioner Mr.S.S. Pandey, Adv. with petitioner in person. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr.Pavan Narang, Adv. with Mr.Anish Dhingra, Adv. & Ms.Vasundhara Chauhan, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioner in the instant case has assailed the judgment dated 4th February, 2013 passed in OA No.4 of 2013 Cpl. Amardeep Dabas Vs. Union of India & Ors. by the Armed Forces Tribunal. A challenge was laid before the Tribunal to an order dated 3rd December, 2012 communicated to the petitioner under cover of a letter dated 11 th December, 2012 cancelling his candidature for commissioning as a flying officer in the Indian Air Force.2. To the extent necessary, the facts giving rise to the instant petition are briefly noted hereafter.3. The petition...
Dda Vs. Meenakshi Choudhrie and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:26. 11.2013 + LPA6732012, LPA8782012, LPA8542012, LPA8592012, LPA8762012, LPA62013, LPA182013, LPA8662012, LPA8832012, LPA222013, LPA8642012, LPA8822012, LPA8572012, LPA212013, LPA8622012, LPA8802012, LPA302013, LPA8712012, LPA202013, LPA8612012, LPA8752012, LPA112013, LPA8842012, LPA8742012, LPA192013, LPA8672012, LPA8732012, LPA172013, LPA232013, LPA8722012, LPA8652012, LPA8792012, LPA8632012, LPA72013, LPA8682012, LPA8022013, LPA8042013 DDA ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Ajay Varma, Advocate versus MEENAKSHI CHOUDHRIE AND ORS ..... Respondents MANMOHAN SINGH ..... Respondent MADAN LAL JAIN ..... Respondent CAPITAL LAND BUILDERS PVT. LTD ..... Respondent GENERAL GARMENT (DELHI) PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent USHA SERVICES & CONSULTANTS LTD. ..... Respondent S.P.JAIN & COMPANY ..... Respondent MEXIT (INDIA) P. LTD. ..... Respondent DHARAM BIR ..... Respondent S.P. SABHARWAL ..... Respondent SEIKI AUTO (I) LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondent...
Kailash Chand Vs. Ganesh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:18. 11.2013 Decided on:25. 11.2013 + RFA (OS) 140/2013, C.M. No.18040/2013 & 18041/2013 KAILASH CHAND ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Neha Kapoor, Advocate. versus GANESH ..... Respondent Through: Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % C.M. No.18040/2013 (for exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. RFA (OS) 140/2013, C.M. No.18041/2013 (for stay) 1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned Single Judge decreeing the suit, CS(OS) 1445/2005, for specific performance. The plaintiff in the suit sued the present appellant Kailash Chand (hereafter the defendant) seeking specific performance of two agreements dated 18.06.2004 and 14.09.2004 in respect of the defendants 1/3rd share (2 bigha, 8 biswas) out of Khasra No.28/11, Village Kakrola, New Delhi (hereafter the suit property). A decree for vacant possession of the property with title, was sough...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »