Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 2 of about 723 results (0.020 seconds)Mrs. Gurdip Kaur Thr. L.Rs Vs. Kamlesh Sachdeva and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.39/2014 % 31st January, 2014 MRS. GURDIP KAUR THR. L.RS ......Appellants. Through: Mr. Rana Ranjit Singh, Mr. Vishal Ranjan, Mr. Vivek Singh and Mr. Jaswant Singh, Advocates VERSUS KAMLESH SACHDEVA & ANR. Through: ...... Respondents. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM No.2007/2013 (Exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. FAO592014 & CM Nos.2005/2014(Stay) & 2006/2014 (U/o22 R3CPC) 2. This appeal impugns the order of the court below dated 28.10.2013 which has dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. FAO392014 application and she was the daughter of defendant no.2 against whom the exparte decree for specific performance was passed on 5.12.1997.3. The facts of the case are that the original defendant no.1-Sh. Govind Jindani was the owner of the suit property, however, he transfe...
Tag this Judgment!ing Vysya Bank 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!ing Vysya Bank 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!Brij Trading Co. Vs. Enforcement Directorate
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL. A. No.91 of 2008 Reserved on: January 24, 2014 Decision on: January 31, 2014 BRIJ TRADING CO. Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Pavan Narang, Mr. Anish Dingra, Mr. Lohitaksh Shukla, Mr. K.R. Dogra and Ms. Vasundhara Chauhan, Advocates. versus ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Subhash Bansal and Mr. Shashwat, Advocates for Enforcement Directorate. Mr. Jatan Singh, CGSC for UOI. WITH CRL. A. No.92 of 2008 RAMESH KUMAR CHOPRA ..Appellant Through: Mr. Pavan Narang, Mr. Anish Dingra, Mr. Lohitaksh Shukla, Mr. K.R. Dogra and Ms. Vasundhara Chauhan, Advocates. versus ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE Appellant Through: Mr. Subhash Bansal and Mr. Shashwat, Advocates for Enforcement Directorate. Mr. Jatan Singh, CGSC for UOI. WITH CRL. A. No.93 of 2008 LEKH RAJ CHOPRA Crl. A. Nos. 91 of 2008, 92 of 2008 & 93 of 2008 ..Appellant Page 1 of 15 Through: Mr. Pavan Narang, Mr. Anish Dingra, Mr. Lohitaksh Shukla, Mr. K.R. Dogra and Ms. Vasundhara Chauh...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Shekhar Jha Vs. University of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on January 16, 2014 Judgment Delivered on January 31, 2014 + W.P.(C) 562/1992 UNIVERSITY OF DELHI ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Anurag Mathur, Advocate versus R.K. YADAV ..... Respondent Represented by: + Mr.Rajiv Agarwal, Advocate with Mr.Anuj Agarwal and Mr.Sachin Sharma, Advocates W.P.(C) 2793/2003 RAM SHEKHAR JHA ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Rajiv Agarwal, Advocate with Mr.Anuj Agarwal and Mr.Sachin Sharma, Advocates versus UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Anurag Mathur, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. These two writ petitions involve one person namely Mr.Ram Shekar Jha arising from two different awards passed in two different industrial disputes raised by him and the issue being inter-connected, with the consent of the counsel for the parties are being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of convenience, I refer the University ...
Tag this Judgment!University of Delhi Vs. R.K. Yadav
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on January 16, 2014 Judgment Delivered on January 31, 2014 + W.P.(C) 562/1992 UNIVERSITY OF DELHI ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Anurag Mathur, Advocate versus R.K. YADAV ..... Respondent Represented by: + Mr.Rajiv Agarwal, Advocate with Mr.Anuj Agarwal and Mr.Sachin Sharma, Advocates W.P.(C) 2793/2003 RAM SHEKHAR JHA ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Rajiv Agarwal, Advocate with Mr.Anuj Agarwal and Mr.Sachin Sharma, Advocates versus UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Anurag Mathur, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. These two writ petitions involve one person namely Mr.Ram Shekar Jha arising from two different awards passed in two different industrial disputes raised by him and the issue being inter-connected, with the consent of the counsel for the parties are being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of convenience, I refer the University ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Swaran Lata and ors. Vs. Shri Kulbhushan Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:18. 12.2013 Pronounced on:31. 01.2014 + RFA (OS) 11/2010, C.M. No.1950/2010 SMT. SWARAN LATA AND ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Sh. Suresh Singh and Sh. Rajneesh Chaudhry, Advocates. versus SHRI KULBHUSHAN LAL AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % C.M. No.1950/2010 (for condonation of delay) For the reasons mentioned in the application, C.M. No.1950/2010 is allowed. RFA (OS) 11/2010 1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned Single Judge, whereby a suit for partition filed by sisters was dismissed. The orders of 19.04.2012 and 11.01.2013 reveal that the first three respondents (contesting parties in the suit) were served, despite which appearance had not been entered by them. The order of 11.01.2013 accordingly RFA(OS) 11/2010 Page 1 recorded that service was complete. It was in these circumstances that the appeal w...
Tag this Judgment!Monica Malik Vs. Amit Malik
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON:26. 11.2013 PRONOUNCED ON:31. 01.2014 % + FAO4732012 CM APPL.19864, 19865/2012, 7768/2013 MONICA MALIK ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Gurmeet Bindra, Advocate. versus AMIT MALIK ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sounak S. Das, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT1 The appellant is aggrieved by an order of the Family Court made on her application seeking maintenance pendent lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 (hereinafter HMA). The impugned order held that the appellant was not entitled to maintenance, and at the same time it directed her to bear the expenses of the two children who are living with her to the extent of 40% for each child (i.e., `12,000/- of the total sum of FAO (OS)473/2012 Page 1 `30,000/-, the balance payable by the respondent husband).2. The parties to these proceedings hereafter referred by their marital status (the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India and anr
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision:31. t January, 2014. + LPA992014, CMs No.2003/2014 (for stay) & 2004/2014 (for exemption) ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Saket Sikri and Mr. Sri Singh, Advocates. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Ravinder Agrawal and Mr. M.P. Singh, Advocates for UOI. AND + LPA1002014, CMs No.2037/2014 (for stay) & 2038/2014 (for exemption) M/S AJANTA MERCHANTS PRIVATE LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Manish Sharma, Mr. Gurpreet, Ms. Shivanshi Gupta and Mr. Nitin Sharma, Advocates. Versus THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ravinder Agrawal and Mr. M.P. Singh, Advocates for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 These intra court appeals impugn the identical orders, both dated 17th January, 2014, of the learned Single Judge of this Court of dismissal of W.P.(C) Nos.318/2014 & 345/2014 respectively pr...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Haryana Roadways, Delhi Vs. Kirpal Singh
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on January 22, 2014 Judgment Delivered on January 31, 2014 + W.P.(C) 3987/2011 M/S HARYANA ROADWAYS, DELHI Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Yashpal Rangi, Advocate with Mr.S.Singh , Advocate. versus KIRPAL SINGH Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.G.S.Charya, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. The present petition is filed challenging the order dated August 23, 2010 of the Labour Court deciding the preliminary issue holding that the inquiry proceedings held against the respondent were not fair and proper and award dated December 24, 2010 passed by the Labour Court IX, Karkardooma, Delhi, whereby the Labour Court held the termination as illegal with a direction for reinstatement and full back wages to be paid @ last drawn wages or as per the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948, prevalent from time to time within one month, failing which the back wages shall incur interest @ 9% per annu...
Tag this Judgment!