Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 29 of about 723 results (0.011 seconds)Rameshwar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on:20.01.2014. Judgment delivered on 22.01.2014 CRL.A. 56/2006 RAMESHWAR Through ..... Appellant Appellant with his counsel Ms.Puja Anand, Adv. versus STATE Through ..... Respondent Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP along with SI Vijay Kumar. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 This appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 14.11.2005 whereby the appellant Rameshwar has been convicted under Section 304-II of the IPC and had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for 3 months. Benefit of Section 428 of the Cr.PC had been accorded. 2 DD No.4-A was received in Police Station Kalyan Puri on 22.09.2004. It had reported that one injured person namely Ishwar (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) had been brought to the LBS Hospital in a brought dead condition. 3 Investigation wa...
Tag this Judgment!Rajinder Kumar Aggarwal Dharamshala Trust Vs. Om Prakash Verma
Court: Delhi
.* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: January 22, 2014 + C.R.P. 90/2012 RAJINDER KUMAR AGGARWAL DHARAMSHALA TRUST ..... Petitioner Through Ms.Shobha Aggarwal, Adv. with Mr.Pranav Jain, Adv. versus OM PRAKASH VERMA Through ..... Respondent Mr.Surender Kumar Sharma, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The petitioner (plaintiff before the learned trial Court) has assailed the order dated 11th May, 2012 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was dismissed.2. Brief facts for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of possession, permanent injunction and recovery of damages/mesne profits against the respondent in respect of the building bearing No.3/165, Mohalla Ganga Ram, Teliwara, Shahdara, Delhi- 32 (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) on the ground that the petitioner is the owner thereof and the respondent is in an...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Prem Prakash Dabral Vs. Smt. Sikha Dabral and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.190/2011 22nd January, 2014 % SH. PREM PRAKASH DABRAL Through: ......Appellant Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate. VERSUS SMT. SIKHA DABRAL AND ANR. Through: None. ...... Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. No one appears for the respondents even in spite of a second call. I have therefore heard the counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. Accordingly, I am proceeding to decide the appeal.2. This Regular Second Appeal impugns the judgment of the appellate Court dated 2.8.2011. The appellate Court by its impugned judgment upheld the judgment of the trial Court which had dismissed the suit for possession, recovery of damages etc filed by the appellant/plaintiff.3. Since for the disposal of a second appeal, a substantial question Whether the Courts below have gone against the settled law as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of...
Tag this Judgment!Rajinder Kumar Gupta and anr. Vs. Sanjeev JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: January 22, 2014 + CM(M) No.372/2013 & C.M. No.5620/2013 RAJINDER KUMAR GUPTA & ANR ..... Petitioners Through Mr.Satish Sahai, Adv. with Mr.Ankur Aggarwal, Adv. versus SANJEEV JAIN & ORS Through ..... Respondents None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. Sh.Rajinder Kumar Gupta and Sh.Lalit Mohan Gupta, petitioners herein, have challenged the order dated 3rd December, 2012 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi whereby the petitioners application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for their impleadement as defendants in the suit was dismissed.2. The brief facts are that Sh.Sanjeev Jain (respondent No.1 herein) filed a suit against the three defendants, i.e. respondents No.2 to 4 herein, namely, Smt.Ramesh Rani, Sh.Honey Jain and M/s Jagat Agro Commodities Pvt. Ltd. (respondents No.2 & 3 are the mother and real brother of respondent No.1/plaintiff) for declaring h...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Babli @ Bawli and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI #3. + CRL. L.P. No.125 of 2013 STATE ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP SI Sunil Sharma, PS:Nand Nagri, Delhi versus BABLI @ BAWLI & ANR. Through: .....Respondents In person CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER2201.2014 % 1. The State seeks leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 16th July 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.179 of 2008 acquitting the Respondents of the offences under Sections 363/343/366A/328/109/114 read with Section 34 IPC.2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 13th July 2008, on receipt of DD No.44B, ASI Bhupinder Singh along with Head Constable Kanwar Pal reached near Gagan Cinema, Nand Nagri, Delhi. There, the Complainant Bakshish Ali and his wife, Rehana met ASI Bhupinder Singh and produced Accused No.1. The Complainant (PW1) disclosed to him that Accused No.1 had kidnapped their daughter, the prosecutrix (PW2) on 6th July 2008. It is stated that the lady c...
Tag this Judgment!Hoshiar Singh and ors. Vs. Dda
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.25/2002 & CM No.79/2002 (Stay) % 22nd January, 2014 HOSHIAR SINGH & ORS. Through: ......Appellants Ms. Maldeep Sidhu, Advocate. VERSUS DDA Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Pawan Mathur, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This regular second appeal is filed by the appellants against the impugned judgment of the first appellate court dated 31.1.2002. This regular second appeal is pending at the admission stage since the year 2002 i.e for over 12 years. The appellate court by its impugned judgment dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein against the judgment of the trial court dated 8.5.2001, and by which judgment, the trial court had dismissed the suit for injunction of the appellants-plaintiffs with respect to the suit land which was acquired land of the government.2. Disputes in the present case pertain to 4 bighas and 4 biswas i.e about ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner Income Tax-i Vs. Chd Developers Ltd.
Court: Delhi
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:22. d January, 2014 % + ITA2982013 COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX-I ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rohit Madan with Mr. P. Roy Chaudhuri, Advocates versus CHD DEVELOPERS LTD. Through: .....Respondent Mr. S. Krishnan, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT: (OPEN COURT) The substantial question of law urged in this appeal by the revenue pertains to Section 80IB (10), particularly Section 80-IB (10)(a)(ii) read with the Explanation.2. It is urged that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) fell into error in granting the benefit of Section 80IB (10), having regard to the fact that the project completion certification had not been issued, in the facts of this case, by the authority prescribed by Explanation (ii).3. The assessment year is 2007-08. The assessee, a real estate developer, launched a project known as Krishna Lok in Vrindavan. It obtained the approval...
Tag this Judgment!Gulati and Co. P. Ltd. Vs. Ram Chander Through L.Rs and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % RSA No.140/2008 22nd January, 2014 GULATI & CO. P. LTD. ......Appellant Through: None. VERSUS RAM CHANDER THROUGH L.RS & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv.with Mr. Vivek Mohanty and Mr. Govind Kumar , Advocates for R-1. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This appeal was passed over on the first call inasmuch as no one had appeared on behalf of the appellant. Even on the second call, no one appears for the appellant. Since this is an old RSA of the year 2008, and it is still pending at the stage of admission in spite of over two dozen dates of hearings, I do not propose to adjourn the matter and am disposing of the appeal as per the record and arguments urged on behalf of respondent no.1. Respondents have very vehemently opposed any adjournment because it is contended that appellant is enjoying benefit of possession of the suit property in s...
Tag this Judgment!British Airways Vs. Dr. Mukesh Mehra
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S.C. Jain, Member: 1) This appeal is preferred by the appellant against the order dt. 22.03.2012 passed by the District Forum-VI, M-Block, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 183/05. 2) The case pertains to desertion of Indian passengers by foreign airlines at alien land, the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant is a senior consultant physician in Delhi, he is qualified MBBS, M.D. (M.ED), Gold Medallist, FIACM, MICC, MCSI, MCCP, MAP and is specialist in Hypertension Heart Deceases and Diabetes, he is also attached with many hospitals of repute in Delhi as consultant and is also having his own clinic in Krishna Nagar, Delhi. The respondent/complainant to update his knowledge and to know latest happening and researches all over the world the used to attend conferences and lectures etc. in different parts of the world from time to time and to attend one such conference and lecture at Zurich (Switzerland), the respondent/complainant alongwith many other senior Doctors from all...
Tag this Judgment!Prabir G. Dastidar Vs. Icici Bank Ltd.
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S.A. Siddiqui(Oral) 1. This appeal has been filed by the complainant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the Act) against the order dated 26.8.11 passed in complaint case No. 156/08 by DCDRF-X, Govt. Of NCT of Delhi. 2. Facts leading to the filing of this appeal are noted below: Complainant/appellant deposited a cheque No. 001186 dated 13.10.06 for an amount of Rs. 11,000/- with respondent (ICICI Bank) on 20.10.06 towards balance transfer. This cheque was drawn on SBI Credit Card with whom complainant/appellant had credit card amount by way of fund transfer for clearing the outstanding payment due towards credit card of the respondent Bank. The said cheque was got encashed by the respondent Bank on 28.10.06 but they kept on denying this fact and failed to reflect the said amount in the monthly statement. The complainant/appellant brought this fact to the notice of the different authorities but with no result. Finally he made a complaint to the Bank...
Tag this Judgment!