Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 25 of about 723 results (0.009 seconds)Rakesh Kumar 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) 2121/2013 RAKESH KUMAR ..... 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, Adv. for R-1 to 3 CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J W.P.(C) 2121/2013 and CM No.4023/2013 (stay) 1. This writ petition has been filed to assail the order dated 14.02.2013 passed by respondent no.2. The consequential relief sought is for release of salary alongwith all consequential benefits with effect from the date the petitioner joined services of respondent no.4 i.e, 19.03.2012.2. facts. Briefly, the challenge arises in the background of the following broad 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 Physical Education Teacher (in short PET)...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. No.81 of 2008 M.P. SINGH ..... Appellant Through: Mr. K.B. Andley, Senior Advocate with Mr. M.L. Yadav and Mr. Lokesh Chandra, Advocates. Versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP for State. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER2301.2014 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 of 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 to pay 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...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Analco (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S Navodya Exim Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on: January 23, 2014 + CS(OS) No.1764/2009 M/S ANALCO (INDIA) PVT LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through Mr. Umesh Mishra, Adv. versus M/S NAVODYA EXIM PVT LTD. ..... Defendant Through Mr. Sheel Kumar, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(ORAL) 1. The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, rendition of account, delivery up etc. against the defendant M/s Navodya Exim Pvt. Ltd.2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff company is engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and selling of Aluminum composite Panel, Plywood, Block Boards, Wood Doors, Window Frames, Veneers, Flush Doors, Lumber Metallic Laminates, Sun Mica and Nuts, Bolts, Screws, Washers, Leaf Springs, Clips, U.J.Cross, Steel Balls, Control Cables, Locks, Spokes and Rings, Aldrops, Latches, Channel, Door Stops, Hinges, Window and Door Fittings bearing trade mark A...
Tag this Judgment!Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhara Dairy Foods Co.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on: January 23, 2014 + CS(OS) No.2617/2010 MOTHER DAIRY FRUIT & VEGETABLE PVT. LTD...... Plaintiff Through Mr.Aman Taneja, Advocate versus DHARA DAIRY FOODS CO. ..... Respondent Through Defendant is ex-parte CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The defendant is ex-parte. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff, Mother Diary Fruit and Vegetable Pvt. Ltd, for permanent injunction, restraining infringement of trademark, copyright, passing off, damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up etc. against the defendant.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that it is the registered proprietor of the well known trademark DHARA and has various registrations for the said mark under Class 29. The details of the said registrations in respect of the mark DHARA have been given in Para 13 of the plaint. Some of them are: registration in respect of DHARA Refined Vegetable Oil under class 29 bearing registration N...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Bansal Enterprises Vs. Vinod Yadav
Court: Delhi
11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.507/2011 % 8th January, 2014 GURCHARAN SINGH & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. N.K. Gupta, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through Mr. P.S. Vimal, Advocate CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this first appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,1987, the claimants/appellants pray for setting aside of the impugned judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 30.8.2011 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants seeking compensation was dismissed.2. The claim petition was dismissed as the Railway Claims Tribunal held that the claimants/appellants failed to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The relevant findings and observations of the Railway Claims Tribunal read as under :After perusal of record, I observe that in the documents i.e. AW1/6 to AW1/9, placed on record by the applicants, it is no ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajpal Singh Vs. Deen Dayal Kapil
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.129/2013 & CM Nos. 10223-24/2013 23rd January, 2014 % RAJPAL SINGH Through: ......Appellant Mr. Deepak Dewan, Advocate. VERSUS DEEN DAYAL KAPIL ...... Respondent Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The challenge by means of this regular second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC is to the impugned judgment of the appellate court dated 10.5.2013 which has dismissed the appeal, filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant. The first appeal was against the judgment of the trial court dated 4.2.2013 by which the suit for possession and mesne profits of the respondent-plaintiff was decreed to the extent of possession by allowing the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.2. In Delhi, in order to maintain a suit in civil court for possession, the following three requirements have to exist: (i) there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; ...
Tag this Judgment!Nafees @ Bhura Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:23rd January, 2014 + CRL.A. 439/1999 NAFEES @ BHURA Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Sumeet Verma, Amicus Curiae along with appellant in person. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP along with SI Manoj Kumar and HC Girish Chandra., P.S. Seelampur . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL JUDGMENT SANJIV KHANNA J.(ORAL) 1. Appellant Nafees @ Bhura impugns the impugned judgment dated 22.04.1999 convicting him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(for short IPC) read with Section 34 IPC for murder of Jai Nand and under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC for attempt to murder Radha. Appellant has also been convicted under Section 392/34 and Section 397 of IPC.2. By an order of sentence dated 24.04.1999, appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC; 10 years rigorous impri...
Tag this Judgment!Savitri Devi Vs. Lal Chand
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA2012012 & CM No.21220/2012 (stay) % 23rd January, 2014 SAVITRI DEVI Through: ......Appellant Mr. Sonal Sinha, Advocate. VERSUS LAL CHAND ...... Respondent Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The regular second appeal impugns the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 12.10.2010 and the appellate court dated 11.9.2012; by which the suit of the present appellant( plaintiff in the trial court) for mandatory injunction and damages has been dismissed.2. Dispute in the present case is with respect to the property no.C-1/33, admeasuring 50 sq. yds. situated on Kasara No.305, New Ashok Nagar, Village Chilla, Saronda Bangar, Shahdara, Delhi. The case of the appellantplaintiff is that she transferred rights in the suit property to the defendant by means of the documentation dated 4.10.93 being the Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney etc a...
Tag this Judgment!N.S.Chopra Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + TEST CASE No.38/2013 Decided on :23. 01.2014 N.S.CHOPRA Through: .. Petitioner Mr.Sandeep Khurana, Adv. versus STATE Through: .. Respondent Ms.Purnima Maheshwari, Adv. for R-1. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) 1. The question to be decided in the instant matter is as to whether the present case is maintainable in Delhi in respect of an immovable property situated in Faridabad. Before dealing with the aforesaid question, it will be pertinent to give a brief background of the case.2. The petitioner Sh.N.S.Chopra has filed a test petition (although in my view it ought to have been a LA case) claiming that Sh.Ranjit Chopra, his brother (deceased), was an ordinary resident of Faridabad, Haryana. The deceased had left behind immovable assets in the form of a residential flat at first floor rear portion of property No.2286 Sector A, measuring 388.89 square yards (325.11 square metres) forming a part of Khasra No.48/17, in the resid...
Tag this Judgment!Neelam Batra Vs. Rakesh Bhatla
Court: Delhi
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.S. (OS) No.3291/2011 Decided on :23. 01.2014 NEELAM BATRA Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. Arun Khosla & Mr. Shreeanka Kakkar, Advocates. versus RAKESH BHATLA Through: ..... Defendant Mr. Y.P. Narula, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aniruddha Choudhury, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) IA No.4036/2012 (u/Order 7 Rule 11 r/w Section 151 CPC) 1. The question involved in the instant matter is as to whether the suit is liable to be rejected on account of deficient court fees having been paid under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) CPC.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff/Ms.Neelam Batra has filed the present suit for declaration and partition against her brother in respect of a single story residential house constructed on a plot of land bearing No.D-1017, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, admeasuring 500 square yards. In the plaint, the averment which pertain to question of payment of court fees are as that the plain...
Tag this Judgment!