Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 10 of about 723 results (0.012 seconds)Prince Garg Vs. Govt of Nct and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.361/2014 & CM Nos.713-714/2014 % Judgement Reserved on:21. t January, 2014 Judgement pronounced on:29. h January, 2014 ..... Petitioner PRINCE GARG Through Mr.M.K. Bhardwaj, Adv. versus GOVT OF NCT & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA DEEPA SHARMA, J.C.M.No.714/2014 (for exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Application is disposed of. W.P.(C) No.361/2014 & CM Nos.713/2014 (for stay) 1. The petitioner was appointed as Pollution Level Test Inspector (PLTI) on 19th January, 1990. The respondents made appointments in the separate cadre of Motor Vehicle Inspector (MVI). The petitioners contention had been that all the said appointees in the cadre of MVI had been promoted to the higher post of Motor Licensing Officer (MLO) whereas the petitioner is still continuing as PLTI.2. The petitioner made a represention dated 21st December, 2010 ...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Dalip Kumar Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:29. h January, 2014 % + CM(M) 983/2013 ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Petitioner Represented by: Ms.Manjusha Wadha and Ms.Punya Rekha Angara, Advocates. Versus DALIP KUMAR GUPTA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Respondent No.4/Mr.Gaurav Sharma in person. Mr.M. Shamikh, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) CM No.14964/2013 (for delay) In view of the averments made in the application, the delay of 19 days in re-filing the instant petition is condoned. The application stands disposed of CM(M) 983/2013 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent Nos. 7 and 8 are not required to adjudicate the instant matter and prays that service upon the aforesaid respondents may be dispensed with. It is ordered accordingly.2. The present petition is preferred against the impugned order d...
Tag this Judgment!Sumit Kumar Verma Vs. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. No.83 of 2008 SUMIT KUMAR VERMA ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate. Versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP for State. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER2901.2014 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19th December 2007 passed by the Special Judge in CC No.61/06/01 convicting the Appellant for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The appeal is also directed against the order on sentence dated 20th December 2007 whereby the Appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for two years and a fine of Rs.4,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for six months for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act and to RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs.6,000 and in default to undergo RI for 9 months for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act....
Tag this Judgment!K.S.Oil Ltd. Vs. Ring India Infotech Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % K.S.OIL LTD. FAO No.35/2014 Through:29. h January, 2014 ......Appellant Mr. Sanjay Relan, Advocate. VERSUS RING INDIA INFOTECH PVT. LTD. Through: ...... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM No.1810/2014(Exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. CM stands disposed of. CM No.1811/2014 (delay in filing)& CM No.1812/2014(delay in refiling) 2. For the reasons stated in the applications, delay in filing and re-filing is condoned. CMs stand disposed of. FAO352014 3. This appeal impugns the order of the trial court returning the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for filing to the court having correct territorial jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the suit property is admittedly situated at Gurgaon, Haryana and which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the courts at Delhi.4. In an appeal such as the present the very first thing which the appellant is...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. United India Insuance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gurbachan Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~R15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:29. h January, 2014 % + MAC.APP. 835/2006 M/S. UNITED INDIA INSUANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. Zahid Ali, Adv. for Mr. A.K. De, Adv. Versus GURBACHAN SINGH AND ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: NEMO. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(ORAL) 1. Instant appeal is directed against the impugned award dated 03.04.2006, whereby ld. Tribunal awarded compensation for a sum of Rs.72,500/- for the injuries received by respondent No.1 and Rs.46,450/towards the damages to the Maruti Car No.DL-2CC-7834.2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that on 29.09.2004, while driving Maruti Car No.DL-2CC-7834, respondent No.1 met with an accident with TATA LP Truck No.DL-1GB-8060. He received injuries in the said accident and spent Rs.63,000/-. The bills are Ex.PW1/5 to PW1/13.3. Respondent No.1 also claimed that he spent Rs.46,450/- on his car, which also got damaged in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sheel Chand Industries Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON:29. 01.2014 + W.P. (C) 3636/2013 SHEEL CHAND INDUSTRIES Through: Mr. S.K. Mathur with Mr. Vibhor Mathur, Advocates. ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Prabjyoti K. Chadha, Advocate for Resp-2, 4 & 5. Mr. Satish Aggarwala with Mr. Anish Aggarwala, Advocates for R-3/DRI. Mr. Debashis Mukherjee, proxy for Ms. Sweety Manchanda, Advocate for R-1/UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent, i.e., customs department to refund a sum of `47,14,188/- and release the bank guarantee furnished to it.3. The petitioner had imported a consignment of Palm Fatty Acid Distillate from Malaysia and Sri Lanka and landed them at ICD, W.P.(C)3636/2013 Page 1 Tughlakabad. The Revenue Intelligence Authorities conducted raids at the petitioners factory...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmal Tower Building Occupants Welfare Society (R Vs. Nirmal Tower Bu ...
Court: Delhi
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.S. (OS) No.40 of 2005 and I.A. Nos.7571/2008, 8519/2008, 377/2009, 10122/2012, 16381/2012, 18566/2012, 12499/2013 & 20188/2013 Decided on :29. h January, 2014 NIRMAL TOWER BUILDING OCCUPANTS WELFARE SOCIETY (REGD.) Plaintiff Through: Ms. Ekta Gambhir, proxy counsel for Mr. Anshuj Dhingra, Advocate. Versus NIRMAL TOWER BUILDING (PVT.) LTD. Defendant Through: Dr. Manmohan Sharma & Mr. Anurag Pratap, Advocates for D-1 and 2. Ms. Vibha Mahajan Seth, Advocate for Delhi Fire Service, Government of NCT of Delhi. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) 1. A request for adjournment is prayed by the learned proxy counsel for the plaintiff on the ground that the counsel is unable to attend the court because of indisposition.2. A perusal of the order sheet shows that though the suit has been filed in the year 2005 and issues have been framed almost two years back but still not even a single witness has been examined till date, therefore, I...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Smt. Pratima Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.368/2013 29th January, 2014 % UNION OF INDIA ......Appellant Through: Mr. Jayesh Gaurav, Advocate VERSUS SMT. PRATIMA DEVI & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Sashi Mohan, Advocate for Mr. Shubhanshu Singh and Mr. Suman Kumar, Advocates for respondent No.1. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this first appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 challenge is laid by the Union of India to the impugned judgment dated 16.5.2013 which has allowed the claim of the applicant-widow, respondent herein, and granted compensation for the death of her husband Sh. Sudesh Sav in an untoward incident on 10.3.2011.2. The facts of the case are that the deceased Sh. Sudesh Sav purchased a ticket for travel from Delhi to Gaya by Neelanchal Express on 9.3.2011. The body of the deceased was found at the railway track on 11.3.2011. Body was found near th...
Tag this Judgment!Rajender Singh Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:29. 01.2014 + W.P.(C) 635/2012 RAJENDER SINGH ..... PETITIONER VERSUS GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... RESPONDENTS ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE: For the Petitioner: Mr. J.P. Sengh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Raj Sharma, Mr. S.N. Sharma, Mr. Dushyant Yadav and Mr. Sumit, Advocates For the Respondents: Ms. Sonakshi, proxy counsel for Ms. Sonia Sharma, Advocate for R-1 Ms. Latika Chaudhary, proxy counsel for Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate for R-2 CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J1 The hearing in this writ petition was expedited, on an early hearing application, moved by the petitioner. The reason the hearing was expedited was because of the fact that the petitioner had brought to the notice of the court on 22.01.2014, that the charges levelled against the alleged co-conspirators had failed both in the criminal proceedings as well as in the departmental proceedings.2. Accordingly, the writ petition...
Tag this Judgment!Narender and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: January 29, 2014 + CRL.A. 1165/2010 NARENDER & ANR. Through: ..... Appellants Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT KAILASH GAMBHIR, J1 Challenge the in present appeal is the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 24.7.2010 and 18.8.2010, respectively, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life together with payment of fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months each.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:The case of the prosecution is that on 04.04.2007 an information was received at the police control room from telephone number 9313522370 regarding the quarrel and stabbin...
Tag this Judgment!