Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 3 of about 723 results (0.019 seconds)Shri Rajindra Motwani Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :04.09.2013 Decided on :31.01.2014 + TEST CAS. 99/2008 SHRI RAJINDRA MOTWANI .... Petitioner Through Ms.Inderjeet Saroop, Advocate versus STATE AND OTHERS Through ..... Respondents Ms.Anuradha Sharma, Adv. for R-2 to R-5. Mr.Neeraj Kumar Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr.Saurabh Suman Sinha and Mr.Ravneet S.Joshi, Advocates for R-6 to R-8 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.1. The present probate petition is filed under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act seeking probate for the last Will and testament dated 29.08.1997 of the deceased late Sh.Pritam Das. The present petition is filed by Sh.Rajendra Motwani, the son of the Testator and the sole executor of the Will. The said Testator-Late Sh.Pritam Das expired on 12.04.2000. His last place of residence is stated to be A-1/33, Janak Puri, New Delhi.2. As per the memo of parties, the said Testator-Late Sh.Pritam Das is survived by four daughters, namely, respondents ...
Tag this Judgment!Shekhar @ Chhotu Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :20. h JANUARY, 2014 DECIDED ON :31. t JANUARY, 2014 + CRL.A. 1283/2011 SHEKHAR @ CHHOTU Through : ..... Appellant Mr.S.B.Dandapani, Advocate. VERSUS THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP. AND + CRL.A. 1056/2011 HARI OM ..... Appellant Through : Mr.Bhupesh Narula, Advocate. VERSUS STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) Through : ..... Respondent Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Shekhar @ Chhotu (A-1) and Hari Om (A-2) question the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 13.12.2010 in Sessions Case No.80/10 arising out of FIR No.45/10 PS Gandhi Nagar by which they were held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 452/394/398/34 IPC. A-1 was also held guilty under Section 25 Arms Act. By orders on sentence dated 15.12.2010, A-1 was awarded RI for three years with fine ` 200/- under Section 452 IPC; RI for five years with fine ` 500/- under Section 394 IPC; RI ...
Tag this Judgment!Virumal Motwani Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :04.09.2013 Decided on :31.01.2014 + TEST.CAS. 47/2011 VIRUMAL MOTWANI Through .... Petitioner Ms. Inderjeet Saroop, Advocate versus STATE AND OTHERS Through ..... Respondents Mr.Neeraj Kumar Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr.Saurabh Suman Sinha and Mr.Ravneet S.Joshi, Advocates for D-6 to D-8 Ms.Anuradha Sharma, Adv. for D-4 to 7 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.1. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he does not press the petition, the present probate petition is dismissed. For detailed order, see the order passed in Test. Cas.99/2008. ( JAYANT NATH ) JUDGE JANUARY31 2014 Rb/n/raj...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Ajanta Merchants Private Ltd. Vs. the Directorate of Enforcement
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!Sonia Sareen Vs. Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business Studies
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:31. 01.2014 + W.P.(C) 746/2014 SONIA SAREEN ..... Petitioner versus SHAHEED SUKHDEV COLLEGE OF BUSINESS STUDIES ..... Respondent ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE: For the Petitioner: Mr Adit S. Pujari, Adv. For the Respondents: Mr Amit Bansal, Adv. CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J CM No.1499/2014 (Exemption) 1. Allowed subject to just exceptions. WP(C) 746/2014 2. Issue notice.3. Mr Amit Bansal accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. In view of the order, that I propose to pass, he states that he does not wish to file a reply.4. The petitioner seeks, broadly, the following prayers by way of the present writ petition: (i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent college to expedite the recruitment process for the post of placement officer on permanent basis; and (ii) Direct the respondent college to place on record any rules/ notifications office orde...
Tag this Judgment!Nisar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON :31. t January, 2014 + CRL.A. 255/2012 NISAR ..... Appellant Through : Mohd.Shamikh, Advocate. versus STATE + ..... Respondent Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State. CRL.A. 256/2012 FIROZ ..... Appellant Through : Mohd.Shamikh, Advocate. versus STATE + ..... Respondent Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State. CRL.A. 1061/2012 WAHID ..... Appellant Through : Mohd.Shamikh, Advocate. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.(ORAL) 1. The appellants Nisar (A-1), Firoz (A-2) and Wahid (A-3) impugn a judgment dated 29.11.2011 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.73/2010 arising out of FIR No.263/08 registered at Police Station Mayur Vihar by which they were convicted for committing offences punishable under Section 452/307/34 IPC. By an order on sentence dated 14.12.2011, they were awarded rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine `500/- e...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Digikore Studios Ltd Vs. M/S Escosoft Technologies Ltd
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:31. 01.2014 FAO(OS) 67/2014 M/S DIGIKORE STUDIOS LTD ..... Appellant versus M/S ESCOSOFT TECHNOLOGIES LTD ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Himanshu Gupta. For the Respondents : Ms Deepika V. Marwaha. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) CM19212014 & CM19222014 (Exemption) The exemptions are allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM19232014 (Delay in Re-filing) & CM19182014 (Condonation of Delay) There is no objection to the delay being condoned on the part of the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent. The applications for condonation of delay are allowed. FAO (OS) 67/2014 & CM19192014 (Stay) & CM19202014 (Impleadment) 1. We have heard counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the respondent was present in Court after noticing the matter in the cause list.2. This appeal is d...
Tag this Judgment!Kamlesh Kumar Gop @ Deepak Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:31.01.2014. CRL.A. 826/2013 KAMLESH KUMAR GOP @ DEEPAK Through ..... Appellant Mr. K. Singhal and Mr.R.C. S. Bhadoria, Advs. versus STATE Through ..... Respondent Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) 1 The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 30.11.2012 & 15.12.2012 respectively wherein he has been convicted for the offence under Sections 363/366/376/201/506 of the IPC as also under Section 313 read with Section 109 of the IPC. The appellant had tried along with another co-accused Rudal Mandal. The appellant before this Court is Kamlesh Kumar Gop. The sentence awarded to him was 8 years RI for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 5 months; 6 years RI for the offence under Section 366 of the IPC coupled with a fine of Rs.4,000/- and in default of pa...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Sh. Nihal Chand (Deceased) Through ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.64/2011 31st January, 2014 % MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ......Appellant Through: Ms. Shobha Gupta, Advocate. VERSUS SH. NIHAL CHAND (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIR ...... Respondent Through: Mr. Manjit Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. No.7261/2011 (condonation of delay) 1. Delay of 527 days in filing the appeal is condoned only for the reason that the main appeal has been heard. C.M. stands disposed of. + RSA No.64/2011 and C.M. No.7260/2011 (stay) 2. Some litigations are tragedy. Tragedy is not because of facts of a case, but the tragedy, as the present judgment will show, arises on account of sheer lack of competence of Advocates. How this lack of competence of Advocates has caused huge expenses to the respondent/plaintiff who has filed the subject suit and from which this Regular Second Appeal of the defendant arises, is narr...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Sharma Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:31. 01.2014 + W.P.(C) 743/2014 R.K. SHARMA ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE: For the Petitioner: Mr Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. with Ms Malvika Trivedi, Mr Saurabh Seth & Mr Shubham Jaiswal, Advs. For the Respondents: Mr Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr Hashmat Nabi, Adv. for R- 1 & 2. Mr A.K. Singh & Ms Geetanjali Khanna, Adv. for R-3. CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J CM No.1493/2014 (Condonation of delay in re-filing) 1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 10 days in re-filing the petition.2. For the reasons given therein the application is allowed and the delay is condoned. Application stands disposed of. WP(C) 743/2014 & CM No.1492/2014 (Stay) 3. This is a writ petition filed wherein broadly following reliefs are prayed for: (i) Quash the orders dated 11.12.2013 and 12.12.2013; (ii) Quash the advertisements dated 0...
Tag this Judgment!