Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 1 of about 723 results (0.022 seconds)Ram Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:31. 01.2014 + Crl. Appeal No.755/2013 RAM KUMAR Through: Versus STATE Through: .Appellants Mr. Sumit Verma, Adv. Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP for State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(Oral) On 2.12.2011, the complainant Vansraj came to the police station Bhalaswa Dairy and lodged a complaint, stating therein that his daughter aged about 12 years had left the house for going to school at about 6 am on that day. When he went to the school at about 9 am to inquire about her, he was informed by her teacher that she had not come to the school. He expressed suspicion that the appellant Ram Kumar (Jhule Wala) @ Shyam aged about 40 years had induced his daughter and taken her to an unknown place. The appellant Ram Kumar had earlier been the tenant of the complainant. The aforesaid information was recorded vide DD No.21A which led to registration of an FIR no.201/2011 under Section 363 of IPC. The c...
Tag this Judgment!Pushpa Builder Ltd. Vs. Vikram Hingorani and ors
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision:31st January, 2014. + RFA5002012, CM No.20871/2012 (for condonation of 1577 days delay in filing the appeal) and CM No.20867/2012 (for stay) ING VYSYA BANK LTD. Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Rajiv Bansal with Mr. Meenal Kashyap, Mr. S.K. Garg & Mr. Gaurav Kumar Singh, Advocates. Versus VIKRAM HINGORANI & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Dr. Aman Hingorani with Ms. Priya Hingorani, Advocates for R-1 to 6. Mr. S.S. Tripathi, Adv. for R-8 & 9. AND + RFA932013 & CM No.4689/2013 (u/S151CPC) ING VYSYA BANK LTD. Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Rajiv Bansal with Mr. Meenal Kashyap, Mr. S.K. Garg & Mr. Gaurav Kumar Singh, Advocates. Versus + VIKRAM HINGORANI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Dr. Aman Hingorani with Ms. Priya Hingorani, Advocates for R-1 to 6. Mr. S.S. Tripathi, Adv. for R-8 & 9. AND RFA1052013 & CM No.3127/2013(for stay) PUSHPA BUILDER LTD. Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Chetan Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Gurkamal Hora Arora, ...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kunti Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~R46 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:31. t January, 2014 + MAC.A.247/2007 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.S.L.Gupta and Mr.Ram Aashray, Advocates. Versus KUNTI DEVI AND ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned award dated 15.02.2007, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation for a sum of Rs.6,95,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.12.2004 at about 5.30 am, deceased Haridhawar Singh was driving Swaraj Majda bearing No.DL1 1403 and was coming from the Ambala side, it hit into Truck bearing No.HR38 1118, when driver of the offending vehicle had stopped the same by the side of centre divider of the road and was in the process of getting down from it. MAC.APP No.247/2007...
Tag this Judgment!Maheshwar Singh Vs. the Management of M/S. Indomag Steel Technology Lt
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on January 08, 2014 Judgment Delivered on January 31, 2014 + W.P.(C) 8495/2011 MAHESHWAR SINGH Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr. A.K.Bajpai with Mr. M.F.Khan, Advocates versus THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. INDOMAG STEEL TECHNOLOGY LTD. ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Lalit Bhasin with Ms. Ratna D.Dhingra, Ms. Bhavna Dhami, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. The issue which arises in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to a compensation of ` 10,00,000/- instead of ` 1,50,000/- as allowed by the Labour Court-IX, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in I.D. No.172/99 (old), 309/10 (new) in the award dated August 26, 2011, deciding a reference made by the appropriate government on March 08, 1999, inter alia, as to whether the services of Sh. Maheshwar Singh have been terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the Management and if so, what relief is he entitled to.2. The brief facts a...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on:23.01.2014. Judgment delivered on 31.01.2014. CRL.A.496/2001 DINESH KUMAR Through: .......Petitioners Mr.S.P.Singh Choudhary and Mr. Y.R.Sharma, Advocates. versus STATE Through: + CRL.A.552/2001 KRIPA SHANKAR Through: ..... Respondent Ms.Fizani Hussain, APP. .......Petitioner Mr.S.P.Singh Choudhary and Mr. Y.R.Sharma, Advocates. versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 Appellants Kripa Shankar and Dinesh are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 03.05.2011 and 11.05.2001 respectively whereby Kripa Shankar had been convicted for the offence under Sections 363/366/376 of the IPC. He had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 6 months for the offence under Section 363 of the IPC. For the offence under Section 366 of the I...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs. Reckitt Benckiser India Limited
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:09. 12.2013 Pronounced on:31.01.2014 + RFA (OS) 50/2008, C.M. APPL. 17116/2008 HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED ..... Appellant Through: Sh. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Aditya Narayan, Sh. Sameer Parekh, Sh. Kumar Shashank and Sh. Nitin Thukral, Advocates. versus RECKITT BENCKISER INDIA LIMITED .... Respondents Through: Sh. C.M. Lall with Ms. Ekta Sarin, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. This is a defendants appeal directed against a decree for permanent injunction issued by the learned Single Judge in a claim alleging that the defendant/appellants advertisement had disparaged the plaintiffs goods. The impugned judgment also directed payment of punitive damages to the extent of Rs. 5 lakhs to the plaintiff. The parties will be referred to by their original description in the suit for the sake of convenience. RFA (OS) 50/2008 Page 1 2. The plain...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Kumar Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: January 22, 2014 Judgment Pronounced on: January 31, 2014 + W.P.(C) 7133/2001 RAMESH KUMAR Represented by: .....Petitioner Mr.R.Kaushik, Advocate for Mr.H.S.Dahiya, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Sachin Datta, Advocate with Ms.Niti Arora, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT NATH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. The writ petitioner challenges the order dated May 24, 2000 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Commandant, CISF dismissing the petitioner from service holding that the charge of showing indiscipline and disrespect towards senior officer, unauthorized absence and habitual misconduct was established. The appeal and the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order dismissing him from service were rejected by the appellate and the revisional authority vide order dated January 02, 2001 and May 30, 2001 respectively.2. On Februa...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Vs. Om Prakash
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % RSA No.35/2014 31st January,2014 JAGDISH Through: ......Appellant Mr. Jagdish Singh, Advocate. VERSUS OM PRAKASH ...... Respondent Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This appeal is filed against the impugned judgment of the appellate court dated 31.8.2013 which has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the trial court dated 28.4.2007. By the impugned judgment two appeals were disposed of inasmuch as two suits were decided by the trial court by its judgment dated 28.4.2007. The disputes in the present case pertained to entitlement of the appellant to 75 sq. yards of the property bearing No.117, Bhogal Lane/road,Jangpura, New Delhi. One suit was the suit of the respondent herein as plaintiff for injunction and the other suit was the suit filed by the appellant herein seeking declaration and injunction. The suit of the respondent-...
Tag this Judgment!J.P.S. Oberoi Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation and anr.
Court: Delhi
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8133/2013 J.P.S. OBEROI Through: versus ..... Petitioner Mr. Sanjoy Ghosh, Advocate NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advocate for North DMC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(ORAL) CM APPL. No.17176/2013 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed off. W.P.(C) 8133/2013 & CM APPL. No.17175/2013 1. This is the second round of litigation initiated by the petitioner before this Court. His earlier writ petition being W.P.(C) No.3005/2013 was disposed off by this Court on 18.07.2013.2. The fundamental issue that is canvassed before this Court is the alleged reluctance of the Appellate Authority to take the assistance and advice of a Structural Engineer in assessing the quality of the whole structure, inter alia, from the point of view of structural stability and public safety. In this con...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil @ Bhure @ Mahanand Vs. State Govt. of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on:28. 01.2014 Date of Decision:31. 01.2014 CRL.A. 34/2010 SUNIL @ BHURE @ MAHANAND ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Mukesh Kalia, Adv. versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP for State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.10.2009 and Order on Sentence dated 30.10.2009, whereby though the appellant was convicted under Section 21(b) of NDPS Act, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already spend by him in the custody on the ground that the substance recovered from him contained only 1.1 gm of diacetylmorphine.2. The case of the prosecution was that on 14.12.2007, the appellant was found to be in possession of mud coloured powder which, on field testing, was found to be heroin, weighed 25 gms and had been kept in five packets. The learned Trial Judge noted that as per the report of FSL, the substa...
Tag this Judgment!