Delhi Court September 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.
Dhananjay Gupta Vs. Sudesh Kumar JaIn (Since Deceased) Thr. Lr and anr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on: September 13, 2013 + CM(M) No.950/2013 DHANANJAY GUPTA Through ..... Petitioner Mr.O.P.Verma, Adv. versus SUDESH KUMAR JAIN (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LR & ANR ..... Respondents Through None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(ORAL) C.M. No.14339/2013 (exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. The application is disposed of. CM(M) No.950/2013 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 22 nd May, 2013 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner being RCA No.51/2012 was dismissed by the District & Sessions Judge (East)-cum-Addl. Rent Control Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, as well as the judgment dated 10th July, 2012 passed by the Addl. Rent Controller whereby the eviction petition filed by the petitioner under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was ...
Sunil Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA 136/2012 Decided on :13. h September, 2013 SUNIL KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr.R.K.Dubey, Advocate. Versus AJAY KUMAR ..... Respondent Through CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J (ORAL) CM No.13982/2013 1. This is an application for restoration of the present regular second appeal.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the record.3. For the reasons stated in the application, the appeal is restored to its original number. RSA No.136/2012 1. The learned counsel for the appellant has been heard with regard to the formulation of substantial question of law involved in the present regular second appeal. However, I am satisfied that no substantial question of law is involved in the matter.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant herein filed a suit for recovery of ``30,000/- (Civil Suit No.566/2007) against the respondent for having done some contract work (kaa...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Sangeeta Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2013
$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP.No.1041/2006 Date of decision :13. h September, 2013 % NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Adv. versus SANGEETA DEVI & ORS. Through ..... Respondents Mr. Shivnath Kumar and Mr. Roshan Kumar, Advs. for respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM :THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT(ORAL) 1. The appellant has challenged the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the compensation of Rs.6 lacs along with interest @ 8% per annum has been awarded to the claimants/respondents no.1 to 3.2. The accident dated 10th June, 2002 resulted in death of Shiv Shankar aged 22 years. The deceased was survived by his widow and parents who filed the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal.3. The appellant contested the claim petition on various grounds inter alia that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The Claims Tribunal obs...
Laxman Yadav Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on:09. 09.2013 Judgment delivered on:13. 09.2013 CRL.A. 1235/2010 LAXMAN YADAV Through ..... Appellant Ms. Nandita Rao, Adv. versus STATE. Through ..... Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, Adv. for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 The accused had been charge-sheeted and ultimately found guilty for having committed the murder of his deceased wife Sita Devi. The date of offence is 28.06.2007; Sita Devi was found lying dead in a pool of blood on the second floor of her matrimonial home i.e. house No.M-452, Shakurpur, Delhi. She had been stabbed twice under her chest. Her dead body had been discovered by her landlady Hardevi (PW-5) who on the fateful day noticed that there was no light switched on in the room; she pushed open the door; on switching on the light, she found the dead body of the victim lying on the floor. 2 At 9.25 PM of 28.06.2007 on DD No.31-A...
Dr. Reddys Laboratory Ltd. Vs. Reddy Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2013
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.S. (OS) No.2194/2003 Date of Decision:13. .09.2013 DR. REDDYS LABORATORY LTD. Through: ....Plaintiff Mr. N.K Kaul, Sr. Adv with Mr Neel Mason, Ms Vrinda Sharma, Ms Sabia Veqar and Ms Vasudha, Advs Versus REDDY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. Through: ...Defendant Mr. Shanti Bhushan, Sr. Adv, with Mr. V.S Reddy, Mr. Kartik Seth, and Mr. S. Prakash Kashyap, Advs CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J.1. The plaintiff has field this suit seeking permanent injunction restraining passing off, infringement of copyright, rendition of accounts of profits, damages, cost and delivery up of infringing goods. The plaintiffs case is as follows:2. The plaintiff, Dr. Reddys Laboratories Ltd., is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Ameerpet, Hyderabad. The plaintiff submits that it is presently Indias second largest pharmaceutical company, and an emerging global pharmaceutical house with the...
RobIn Sethi Vs. State of Nct of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3846/2013 Decided on 13.09.2013 IN THE MATTER OF : ROBIN SETHI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Raj Kamal, Advocate versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP for the State with SI Jitender Rana, CAW Cell, North Distt. CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.PC praying inter alia for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 12.01.2013 filed in case FIR No.95/2012 dated 15.03.2012, under 376/312/506/34 IPC at Police Station: Sarai Rohilla, Delhi. Sections The petitioner also seeks quashing of the order dated 31.08.2013 whereby, charges have been framed against him by the learned ASJ under Sections 376/506 IPC.2. Counsel for the petitioner states that while framing the order on charge, the Sessions Court had erred inasmuch as it had failed to take into consideration the fact that there was no evidence on reco...
Sanjib Kumar Jena Vs. Pradeep Kr. And* ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:13. h September, 2013 + CS(OS) 2098/2011 and IA Nos. 13656/2011(u/O39R1& 2 CPC) and 17463/2011 (u/O39R4CPC) SANJIB KUMAR JENA Through ..... Plaintiff Mr.Anuj Kumar Padhy and Mr. S.R. Padhy, Advocate versus PRADEEP KR. &* ORS. Through ..... Defendants Ms. Reena Gupta and Mr. Nitin Garg, Advocate for D-1. Mr. Saamdarshi Sanjay, Advocate for D-2. Mr. Rajiv Bakshi, Advocate for D-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) IA No.17462/2011(u/O7R11 1. This is an application filed by defendant No.2 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for dismissal of the above captioned suit. The plaintiff on 12 th April, 2011 entered into an agreement to sell with defendant No.1 pertaining to Flat No.268, Sector 13, MIG, Pocket A, Dwarka, New Delhi for a purchase value of Rs. 63,75,000/-. The plaintiff is stated to have paid an advance of Rs. 3,00,000/- to defendant No.1. As defendant No.1 has failed to proceed further, the present suit ha...
Sunita Kansal Vs. Subhash Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: Pronounced on: + 06.08.2013 12.09.2013 IA No.19203/2012 (u/O.7 Rule 11 CPC) in CS(OS) 1650/2011 SUNITA KANSAL Through versus SUBHASH CHAND Through ..... Plaintiff Mr.Dilip Singh, Mr.Roshan Ara and Ms.Tarannum Praveen, Advs. ..... Defendant Mr.Rakesh Kansal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.IA No.19203/2012 (u/O.7 Rule 11 CPC) 1. The plaintiff has filed the present Suit seeking possession of three rooms, one store, one kitchen, bathroom, latrine at ground floor and entire first floor of property bearing not T-82, Vishnu Garden, Khayala, Delhi-110018. The defendant is the real brother of the husband of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is stated to have purchased the suit property for valuable consideration from Smt.Sulochna through defendant. The defendant was the power of attorney holder for the suit property and is stated to have executed relevant documents in favour of the plaintiff.2. The present application...
Shri Hoti Lal Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5201/2013 SHRI HOTI LAL Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Rajendra Dutt, Advocate versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Standing Counsel with Ms. Meenal Kashyap and Ms. Tanvi Garg, Advocates Reserved on :30. h August, 2013 Date of Decision:12. h September, 2013 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: CM APPL. 11684/2013 in W.P.(C) 5201/2013 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 5201/2013 & CM APPL. 11683/2013 1. Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to respondent-DDA to allot residential plots in terms of allotment-cum-demand letter dated 12th September, 1998 in Wazirpur, Phase-IV, Delhi as well as for quashing of rejection letter dated 14th January, 2013 issued by respondent-DDA.2. The relevant facts of the present case are that in 1985, respondent- DDA floated a resettlement scheme for jhuggi dwe...
Anupa Abrol Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2013
10 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1737/2013 & CM APPLs. 3841/2013 AND 5467/2013 ANUPA ABROL ..... Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person. versus PUNJAB AND SIND BANK AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Suneel Kumar Atreya, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Abhinav Tyagi, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. Date of Decision:12. h September, 2013. % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J (Oral):1. Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the respondent No.1-Bank not to invoke the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 2002) on the ground that the alleged property bearing No. A-283, Shivalik, New Delhi-110017 admeasuring 197 sq. yds. does not fall within the definition of Financial Assets.2. Petitioner, who appears in person, draws this Courts attention to the letter dated 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- Next ›
- Last »