Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 23 of about 723 results (0.024 seconds)Centre for Development of Telematics Vs. Commissioner and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % FAO No.229/2006 24th January, 2014 CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF TELEMATICS ......Appellant Through: Mr. Ajay Bhatnagar, Advocate. VERSUS COMMISSIONER & ANR. Through: ...... Respondents Mr. Pradeep Gaur and Mr. Amit Gaur, Advocates for R-4. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This first appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923(in short the Act) impugning the order of the Employees Commissioner dated 21.7.2006 awarding interest and penalty against the appellant/principal.2. It is undisputed before this Court that the main judgment awarding compensation was passed by the Commissioner vide the earlier judgment dated 27.1.2005, and which has become final. By the original impugned judgment dated 27.1.2005, a sum of Rs. 3,30,000/- was awarded towards compensation.3. By the impugned order dated 21.7.2006, interest and penalty under Section 4-A of...
Tag this Judgment!Panasonic Avc Networks India Co. Ltd. Vs. AfrIn Khatoon and Another
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S.A. Siddiqui, (Judicial) Member: 1) Alleging deficiency of service on the part of the OP, complainant/respondent-1 filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (South) New Delhi, for a refund of the price of the T.V., compensation and the cost. During the course of the proceedings on 01.08.2011 ex-parte proceedings were drawn against OP-2/appellant as neither OP-2 nor counsel was present before the Forum. Counsel for the OP-2 reached a bit late and moved an application for setting aside ex-parte order, but this application was dismissed on the ground that the District Forum had no power to set aside the ex-parte or to recall its own order. Therefore, the OP-2 preferred this appeal which is under consideration. 2) On to filing the appeal, notices were issued to the respondents. Respondent-1/complainant appeared and filed reply. 3) It has been argued on behalf of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that on 01.08.2011, counsel for the appellant could not...
Tag this Judgment!Ennore Tank Terminal (P) Ltd. Vs. V.P. Krishnamurthy and Another
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
M. Chockalingam, Judicial Member: 1. This miscellaneous application has been filed by the applicant namely M/s. Ennore Tank Terminal Private Limited for impleading M/s. Ennore Tank Terminal Private Limited as a party respondent in the main application No. 176 of 2013 (SZ). The learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein and the applicant in the main application files objections. The 4th and 6th respondents have already filed their objections. 2. Pending the main application in Application No. 176 of 2013 (SZ) seeking a direction to the 4th, 5th and 6th respondents to shift the pipelines passing through the densely populated area in North Chennai and to discontinue immediately the use of these pipelines and also a direction to these respondents to find a suitable location for laying pipelines in accordance with environmental protection laws and taking into account the preservation of human lives and, flora and fauna and receiving the complaint that the ground water is being cont...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Yogesh Suri Vs. Ashok Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.A. No.126/2005 % Judgment delivered on:23. January, 2014 MRS. YOGESH SURI Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr. Vikas Jain, Adv. Versus ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. R.N. Sharma, Adv. for R3. Mr. K.R. Pamei, Adv. for R6. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the award dated 18.10.2004, whereby ld. Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs. 1,96,400/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.2. The present appeal has been filed for enhancement of the award amount as noted above.3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant had produced medical bills for an amount of more than Rs.2,00,000/-, however, ld. Tribunal granted only Rs.50,000/- towards the same.4. He submitted that during the pendency of the instant appeal, AW1, Dr. Yatinder Kharbanda, Sr. Consultant (O...
Tag this Judgment!Rajan Saha Vs. State Govt. of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :16. h January, 2014 DECIDED ON :23. d January, 2014 + CRL.A.673/2012 & Crl.M.B.No.960/2013 RAJAN SAHA Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Rajeev Kapoor, Advocate. versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Rajan Saha (the appellant) questions the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 31.03.2012 in Sessions Case No.137/11 arising out of FIR No.267/08 registered at Police Station Dabri by which he was convicted for committing offences under Sections 395/412 IPC. By an order on sentence dated 09.04.2012 he was awarded rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine `25,000/- each under Section 395 and 412 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 12.05.2008 at about 11.45 A.M. at house No.RZ-B-2, Raghu Nagar, Pankha Road, Dabri, he and his associates committed decoity and deprived the compla...
Tag this Judgment!Neha Vashisht Vs. Govt of Nct of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:23. 01.2014 W.P.(C) 1840/2013 and CM No.3516/2013 (stay) NEHA VASHISHT ..... Petitioner versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE: For the Petitioner: Mr. Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. V.K. Tandon and Mr. Yogesh Saini, Advocates for R-1 to 3 CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J1 This writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.03.2013 passed by respondent no.2. The challenge to the said order has been laid in the background of the following broad facts. Respondent no.4 school, which is a school receiving aid from respondent nos. 1 to 3, issued an advertisement dated 21.10.2011 inviting applications for the post of Librarian in the general category. The petitioner applied for the said post with respondent no.4 school.2. The petitioner was requested to appear before the Staff Selection Committee (SSC) for an interview. Appar...
Tag this Judgment!Thakur Rajesh Rana Vs. State and ors
Court: Delhi
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:23.01.2014 CRL.REV.P. 404/2013 THAKUR RAJESH RANA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr.R.P.Luthra and Mr. Sourabh Luthra, Advocates. versus STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms.Fizani Huaain, APP along with SI Prakash for the State. Mr.Madhur Mukul Tripathi, Adv. for R2 to R- 7 with Mr.Vinod Sharma, Adv. for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) 1 Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 04.6.2013 wherein the accused persons had been discharged for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. 2 Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant being that there was ample evidence collected by the prosecution to charge the accused persons under Section 302 IPC and if not under Section 302 of the IPC a case under Section 304 was clearly made out. The trial court has on conjectures and surmises discharged the accused persons. 3 Record shows that the FIR had been registered under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Nadeem Alias Nadim Vs. State
Court: Delhi
$~R-18 & 19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on:16.01.2014 Judgment delivered on:23.01.2014 CRL.A. No.55/2006 NADEEM ALIAS NADIM Through ..... Appellant Mr.Shyam Moorjani and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advs. versus STATE Through + ..... Respondent Mr. Varun Goswami, APP CRL.A. No.543/2006 ZAKIR Through ..... Appellant Mr.Shyam Moorjani and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advs. versus STATE Through ..... Respondent Mr. Varun Goswami, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 Appellants Zakir and Nadeem @Nadim are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 26.11.2005 and 30.11.2005 respectively whereby each of them had been convicted under Sections 392, 394 read with Section 34 of the IPC and had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 392 of the IPC; for the offence und...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lal Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~R6A and R6B * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:23. d January, 2014 + MAC.A.210/2006 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. Versus RAJINDER AND ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: NEMO. AND + MAC.A.290/2006 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. Versus LAL SINGH AND ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: NEMO. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The above noted appeals have arisen from a common judgment dated 22.08.2005 whereby, ld. Tribunal in Suit No.22/05 has awarded compensation a consolidated amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of pain and suffering, medical treatment, loss of income etc. In Suit No.23/05, awarded compensation for an amount of Rs.5,75,000/- on account of death of deceased Ramkali.2. Ld. Tribunal has also granted interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the payment made.3. Since both ...
Tag this Judgment!Kuldip Sobti Vs. the Sub Registrar of Assurance-ii a and anr
Court: Delhi
$~15. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1552/2013 % Judgment dated 23.01.2014 KULDIP SOBTI Through : ..... Plaintiff Mr.Dinesh Garg and Ms.Rachna Aggarwal, Advs. versus THE SUB REGISTRAR OF ASSURANCE-II A & ANR Through : ..... Defendants Ms.Chanchal Sharma, Adv. for D-1. Mr.Sunil Fernandes, Mr.Deepak Pathak, Mr.Raghav Chadha, Mr.Neeraj Grover and Ms.Insha Mir, Advs. for D-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) 1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction.2. According to the plaint, one, Sh.Rajesh Wadhwa, was the owner and in possession of entire basement floor and entire ground floor alongwith one mezzanine room together with entire front courtyard and rear open space of freehold plot No.18 on road No.4, measuring 199.42 sq. yards, situated in the layout plan of The Adarsh Bhawan Cooperative House Building Society Limited, near Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, with undivided, indivisible and proportionate share in land...
Tag this Judgment!