Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 22 of about 723 results (0.022 seconds)Prem Chand Sharma Vs. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on January 22, 2014 Judgment Delivered on January 24, 2014 + W.P.(C) 161/2012 PREM CHAND SHARMA ..... Petitioner Represented by: Ms.Shantha Devi Raman, Advocate with Mr.Sanjeet Ranjan, Advocate versus GANNON DUNKERLEY & CO. LTD. ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Ajay Kumar Seth, Advocate with Mr.Vineet Seth, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. In this writ petition, the challenge is to the Award dated August 10, 2011 passed in I.D No.259/2010 in a claim petition filed by the petitioner herein directly before the Labour Court, whereby the Labour Court dismissed the claim petition and not granted the relief he had sought for.2. The facts as can be noted from the record are that the petitioner was appointed by the respondent organization as a Junior Store Officer on the monthly salary of `8,000/- in terms of appointment letter dated June 08, 2006. It was the case of the workman that he did hi...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi NaraIn Sharma Vs. Jawahar Goel
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on: January 24, 2014 + RC. Rev. No.350/2011, C.M. Nos.16333/2011 & 16335/2011 LAXMI NARAIN SHARMA ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Sudhir Vats, Adv. with Mr.Sanjay Aggarwal, Adv. versus JAWAHAR GOEL Through ..... Respondent Mr.V.P. Katiyar, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. By way of the present petition under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short, called the Act), the petitioner has assailed judgment and decree dated 14th September, 2012 passed by the Learned ARC whereby an eviction order was passed in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner as well as impugned order dated 18th July, 2011 passed by the learned Addl. Rent Controller whereby the applications moved by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC and Section 25-B(9) of the Act, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, Section 151 CPC and Section 144 read with Section 151 CPC were dismissed...
Tag this Judgment!Haryana Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs. Central Provident Fund Commissioner an ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on January 24, 2014 + W.P.(C) 4037/2011 HARYANA PETROCHEMICALS LTD. ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Arunav Patnaik, Ms. Mahima Sinha, Ms. B.Das, Advocates versus CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND ANR. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Keshav Mohan, Ms. Amrita Narayan, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.(Oral) 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated January 31, 2011 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (Tribunal, in short) under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Act, in short) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Commissioner, in short) in proceedings under Section 7A of the Act, was dismissed.2. The brief facts are that the proceedings under Section 7A of the Act were initiated against the petitioner which is an establis...
Tag this Judgment!Maula Baksh Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
$-20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON :24. h JANUARY, 2014 + CRL.A. 415/2011 & CRL.M.A. 1148/2014 MAULA BAKSH ..... Appellant Through : Mr.Sumeet, Verma, Advocate. VERSUS THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.Garg, J.(Open Court) 1. Maula Baksh (the appellant) impugns the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 25.05.2010 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.37/2008 arising out of FIR No.55/2008 PS Ashok Vihar by which he was convicted for committing offences under Sections 397/394/34 IPC. By an order on sentence dated 26.05.2010, he was awarded RI for seven years with fine ` 10,000/- under Section 392 IPC read with Section 397 IPC; RI for seven years with fine ` 10,000/- under Section 394 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.2. First Information Report was lodged by Nitin Mehta who disclosed to the police that on 21.02.2008 at about 05.00 P.M. he was si...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Rampal Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:9. h January, 2014 Pronounced on:24. h January, 2014 + CRL. A. 372/1998 STATE Through ..... Appellant Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State with SI Sandeep Sharma, PS Vasant Kunj. versus RAMPAL SINGH AND ANR. .... Respondents Through Mr. Aman Lekhi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL JUDGMENT G.P. MITTAL, J.1. Respondents Ram Pal Singh and Parvinder Singh have faced trial in Sessions Case No.58 of 1996 for the offence punishable under Sections 302/392/382 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). By a judgment dated 29.09.1997, they were acquitted of all the charges framed against them.2. Feeling aggrieved, the State sought Leave to Appeal against the impugned judgment and the same was granted by an order dated 26.08.1998. Before dealing with the grounds of Appeal, it will be apposite to pen down the prosecution version.3. On 22....
Tag this Judgment!Attar Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on:16. 01.2014. Judgment delivered on:24. 01.2014. CRL.A. 539/2000 ATTAR SINGH Through: ..... Appellant Mr.S.H.Ansari, Adv. versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr.Navin K.Jha, APP along with SI Uma Dutt. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 17.08.2000 and order on sentence dated 18.08.2000 whereby he had been convicted under Section 376 of the IPC and had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for a period of 6 months. 2 The version of the prosecution was unfolded in the statement of the mother of the victim Smt. Geeta (PW-2). She was the complainant of the case. As per her statement, on the fateful day i.e. on 15.08.1996 when she came back from work, she found the door of her jhuggi closed from inside; her daughter Rekha (PW-1) aged 8 years wa...
Tag this Judgment!Pawan @ Diggi Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: January 24, 2014 + CRL.A. 1297/2010 Pawan @ Diggi Through: ..... Appellant Mr. R.D.Rana, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Richa Kapoor, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State AND + CRL.A.1322/2010 Pawan @ Diggi Through: ..... Appellant Mr. R.D.Rana, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Richa Kapoor, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT KAILASH GAMBHIR, J1 By this common judgment we propose to decide two criminal appeals preferred by the same appellant, Pawan @ Diggi challenging the common judgment dated 9th August, 2010 and order on sentence dated 12thAugust, 2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge.2. Crl.A. No.1297/2010 has been preferred by the appellant to challenge the impugned judgment whereby the appellant has been held guilty for committing an offence punishable under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Maj Gen V K Singh Retd Vs. the Director Cbi
Court: Delhi
A-20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Judgment:24.01.2014 CRL.REV.P. 286/2013 MAJ.GEN. V.K.SINGH RETD. Through: ..... Petitioner Mr.Chander M. Maini, Advocate. versus THE DIRECTOR CBI Through: ..... Respondent Mr.B.R.Handa, SPP for CBI. Sr. Advocate, CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) Crl.M.A. No.5993/2013 ( for condonation of delay of 95 days) 1 Petitioner by way of this application seeks condonation of delay of 95 days in filing this revision petition. 2 Notice of this application had been issued on 13.5.2014. Respondent has chosen not to file reply. application. He has not opposed the The delay is accordingly condoned. Application is allowed. CRL.REV.P. N.286/2013 3 Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.10.2012 passed by the court of Special Judge, CBI wherein an application filed by the petitioner under Section 156(3) of the Code Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) seeking directions to the C...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and anr. Vs. Saikat Roy
Court: Delhi
$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 508/2014 Date of decision:24. h January, 2014 % UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Through: ..... Petitioners Mr.Rajinder Nischal with Mr.Asish Nischal, Advocates versus SAIKAT ROY Through: ..... Respondent Mr.Saurabh Bhargavan and Ms.Surekha Bhargavan, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J.(Oral) Caveat No.71/2014 Respondent is represented through counsel. Caveat accordingly stands discharged. C.M.No.1008/2014 (for exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Application is disposed. W.P.(C) 508/2014 & C.M.No.1007/2014 (for stay) 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 12th August, 2013 in O.A.No.2078/2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The factual matrix of the case is undisputed. The respondent had participated in an examination conducted by the Union Public Sevice Commission (UPS...
Tag this Judgment!Gurpreet Kaur and ors. Vs. Harjeet Kaur
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA2382013 & CM Nos. 16559-16560/2013 24th January, 2014 % GURPREET KAUR AND ORS. Through: ......Appellants Mr. A.K. Tripathi, Advocate VERSUS HARJEET KAUR Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Roop Ram, Advocate CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This regular second appeal impugns the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 5.2.2013 and the Appellate Court dated 9.10.2013; decreeing the suit for possession filed by the respondent-plaintiff with respect to the suit property B-46, East Krishna Nagar, Delhi -110051 situated at plot admeasuring 156 sq. yards.2. As per the plaint filed by the respondent/plaintiff in the trial court, the respondent-plaintiff stated that one Sh. Sarpal Singh husband of appellant no.1/defendant no.1 was requested by the husband of the plaintiff to take care and look after the suit property, and for which purpose the posse...
Tag this Judgment!