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.
Ashok Kumar Mishra Vs. Carzonrent (India) Private Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Order delivered on: November 18, 2013 CM(M) No.977/2013, C.M. Nos.14810/2013 & 17498/2013 SUNIL CHAUDHARY Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Rohit Jain, Adv. with Ms.Tajinder Virdi, Adv. versus CARZONRENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Respondent Through Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Vijay Nair, Mr.Rajat Joneja & Mr.Prashant Jain, Advs. + CM(M) No.982/2013, C.M. Nos.14956/2013 & 17511/2013 VIJAY KUMAR JHA Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Rohit Jain, Adv. with Ms.Tajinder Virdi, Adv. versus CARZONRENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Respondent Through Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Vijay Nair, Mr.Rajat Joneja & Mr.Prashant Jain, Advs. + CM(M) No.987/2013, C.M. Nos.14977/2013 & 17507/2013 BHAGYA NARAYAN JHA Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Rohit Jain, Adv. with Ms.Tajinder Virdi, Adv. versus CARZONRENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Respondent Through Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Vijay Nair, Mr.Rajat Joneja & Mr.Prashant Jain, Advs. + CM(M) No.998/201...
Sakib Ahmed Vs. Carzonrent (India) Private Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Order delivered on: November 18, 2013 CM(M) No.977/2013, C.M. Nos.14810/2013 & 17498/2013 SUNIL CHAUDHARY Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Rohit Jain, Adv. with Ms.Tajinder Virdi, Adv. versus CARZONRENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Respondent Through Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Vijay Nair, Mr.Rajat Joneja & Mr.Prashant Jain, Advs. + CM(M) No.982/2013, C.M. Nos.14956/2013 & 17511/2013 VIJAY KUMAR JHA Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Rohit Jain, Adv. with Ms.Tajinder Virdi, Adv. versus CARZONRENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Respondent Through Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Vijay Nair, Mr.Rajat Joneja & Mr.Prashant Jain, Advs. + CM(M) No.987/2013, C.M. Nos.14977/2013 & 17507/2013 BHAGYA NARAYAN JHA Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Rohit Jain, Adv. with Ms.Tajinder Virdi, Adv. versus CARZONRENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Respondent Through Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Vijay Nair, Mr.Rajat Joneja & Mr.Prashant Jain, Advs. + CM(M) No.998/201...
Dalvinder Singh Sodhi and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2013
$~R-20. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 102/2005 % Judgment dated 18.11.2013 DALVINDER SINGH SODHI & ANR. ..... Appellants Through : Ms.Manisha Bhandari and Mr.M.L. Yadav, Advs. versus STATE Through : ..... Respondent Mr.Firoz Khan Ghazi, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) 1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 21.1.2005 and order on conviction dated 25.1.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby appellant no.1, Ghanshyam, has been awarded sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him during trial with fine of Rs.1.00 lakh and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for one year for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Appellant no.2, Rajiv Sodhi, was directed to undergo five years of RI with fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, SI for six months, for the offence punishable under Section 307 ...
Pradeep Kumar Gulati Vs. D.D.A.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2013
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:18. h November, 2013 + W.P.(C) 343/2013 PRADEEP KUMAR GULATI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Dilip Singh, Adv. with Ms. Taranum Parveen, Adv. versus D.D.A. Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Manika Tripathy Pandey, Adv. with Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL JUDGMENT G.P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. The short question falling for consideration in the instant writ petition is whether a person who purchases any DDA property measuring less than 67 sq. mts. from the open market (as a subsequent purchaser) is debarred from allotment or transfer of registration in case of death of his/her predecessor of a DDA property.2. The case is squarely covered by a number of judgments of this Court, the latest being Kamlesh Sharma v. Delhi Development Authority, W.P.(C) 3680/2013, decided on 29.05.2013.3. The facts of the case are not in dispute.4. The Petitioner owned an LIG Flat, No.FG-I/43-B, Vikas Puri, New Delhi having p...
Santokh Singh Thru Lrs Vs. Sucha Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2013
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.238/2004 and CM No.15428/2004 Date of Decision :18. 11.2013 SANTOKH SINGH THRU LRS Through: ..... Appellant In person. versus ..... Respondent SUCHA SINGH Through: Mr.S.N.Gupta, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) 1. The present regular second appeal has been pending for the last nine years.2. The appellant is present in person.3. He has prayed for an adjournment on the ground that his counsel is not available. The request for adjournment is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent.4. A perusal of the record shows that the instant regular second appeal is pending since 07.12.2004 i.e. almost for the last nine years. Though the matter has been taken up for hearing on different dates, the same has been adjourned at the request of the counsel for more than 15 times. There is a stay order against dispossession of the appellant from the suit premises passed on 07.12.2004, but no sincere efforts h...
Bal Chand and ors. Vs. State Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2013
$~26. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment dated 18.11.2013 + CRL.A. 133/2005 BAL CHAND & ORS. Through : ..... Appellants Mr.Jatan Singh, Adv. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI Through : ..... Respondent Mr.Firoz Khan Ghazi, Adv. Complainant in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.(Oral) 1. Present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.1.2005 and order on conviction dated 1.2.2005 whereby the appellants have been directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.15,000/-, each, and in case of default of payment of fine, further Rigorous Imprisonment for six months each. It was also directed that the period of detention already undergone during the investigation/trial shall be set-off. In the event of deposit of fine, the same would be paid as compensation to Anil Kumar, after expiry of the period of appeal or after and subject to decision in the appeal, if preferred.2. The necessary facts, as noticed by the trial court...
Bhupinder Kumar Sahni Vs. Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2013
$~16. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment dated 18.11.2013 + CRL.A. 1455/2013 BHUPINDER KUMAR SAHNI Through : Appellant in person. ..... Appellant versus MUKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL & ANR ..... Respondents Through : Mr.Firoz Khan Ghazi, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.(Oral) CRL.M.A. No.17180/2013.1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.2. Application stands disposed of. CRL.A. 1455/2013 3. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 6.8.2013 on an application filed by the appellant under Section 340 Cr.P.C.4. The facts of the case, as mentioned in this appeal, are that respondent no.2, company, had filed a suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of Rs.5,68,750/- through respondent no.1 against M/s Byford Leasing Limited, of which the appellant herein is one of the Directors. According to appellant, false averments were made in the plaint, including that defendant no.3, Smt.Krishnawanti Sahni, in the suit ...
Nand Lal Vs. Rita Gauri and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2013
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA1262012 & CM No.12973/2012 Date of Decision :18. 11.2013 NAND LAL ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Kumar Mukesh, Advocate. versus RITA GAURI & ORS. ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2012 passed by the learned ADJ in RCA No.30/2005.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to formulation of question of law. However, the formulation which has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the submission as to whether agreement to sell in question creates any right, title or interest in the suit property or the occupation of the premises by the appellant as a tenant which was subsequently perfected by an agreement to sell do not raise any question of law much less a substantial question of law.3. I have also perused both the judgment of the trial court as wel...
Banarsi Dass Decd. Thr. Lrs and ors. Vs. Suraj Bhan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2013
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.51/2012 Date of Decision :18. 11.2013 BANARSI DASS DECD. THR. LRS & ORS. Through: ..... Appellant Mr.L.D.Adlakha, Advocate. versus SURAJ BHAN & ORS. ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that his application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking permission to adduce additional evidence was rejected on 20.04.2010 and the appeal RCA No.197/2002 was also dismissed on the same date. It was stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC ought to have been allowed by the learned appellate court to adduce evidence to show that he along with his brother was the recorded owner of the suit land in the revenue record. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is to t...
Dda Vs. Om Shanti and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-2013
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA2122008 & CM No.12973/2012 Date of Decision :18. 11.2013 DDA ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Pawan Mathur, Advocate. versus ..... Respondents OM SHANTI & ANR. Through: Mr.L.K.Singh, Advocate for R-1 (a) to (c). Mr.Shyel Trehan and Ms.Manjira Dasgupta, Advocates for R2/MCD. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant/DDA against the judgment dated 08.02.2008.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. The only substantial question of law which arises for consideration of this court is:as to whether the judgment of the first appellate court suffers from any perversity?. If so, to what effect?.3. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that the judgment of the first appellate court dated 08.02.2008 suffers from perversity inasmuch as without discussing the evidence or the facts of the case, it has arriv...
- ‹ Prev
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- Next ›
- Last »