Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 30 of about 723 results (0.021 seconds)British Airways Vs. Dr. Kamal Kumar
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. 276/04. 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!Indian Medical Associations Aurangabad Branch and Another Vs. the Unio ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
1. This Application has been registered upon transfer of the Writ Petition No.3461 of 2002 by the Honble High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad vide its order dated 1st October 2013. The Application has been mainly filed to challenge the Government of Maharashtra Resolution dated 20th April 2000, stipulating authorization fees under the Bio Medical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules 1998, notified under the Environment (Protection) Act 1986, to be paid by the Health Care Institutions. 2. The Applicant No.1 is the Indian Medical Association which is a registered Association formed and registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act 1950. The Applicant No.2 is a practicing Medical Professional. The brief contentions of the Application are as under :- Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India (Respondent No.1) have enacted Environment (Protection) Act 1986 with an objective to provide œan enactment of a general legislation on environment protection whi...
Tag this Judgment!Balbir Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A): 1. The applicant of this case is before us aggrieved by the orders dated 16.11.2009 (Annexure A-1) by which he has been removed from service of the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC, in short) under Clause-15 (2) (VI) of Delhi Road Transport Authority (DRTA, in short) (Condition of appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 (DRTA Regulations 1952, in short), and the order dated 23.08.2010, by which the appeal filed by him on 11.03.2011 (Annexure A-3) addressed to Chairman-cum-Managing Director (CMD, in short) of DTC for reinstatement in service has also been rejected. 2. The applicant had joined DTC as a driver in 1982. On 08.03.2007, the applicant was implicated in a criminal case under Section 302 of IPC, and Arms Act, in Police Station Kharkhoda, Sonepat, in FIR No.46/2007. He remained absconding thereafter, and had later submitted that he had to go into hiding because the rival party wanted to eliminate him if he was seen at the duty or at his residence. He...
Tag this Judgment!Veena Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Decision:21. 01.2014 CRL.A. 1142/2013 VEENA ..... Appellant Through: Mr J.S. Kushwaha, Adv. versus STATE + ..... Respondent Through: Mr Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP CRL.A. 949/2013 ASHOK @ PAPPU Through: Mr Ankur Sood, ..... Appellant versus STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Mr Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.On 18.7.2009, the complainant Ravinder came to PS Sultan Puri and lodged an FIR, stating therein that his child M, aged about 4 years, had gone to market along with his sister-in-law Jyoti, but got separated from Jyoti on account of crowd in the market, and he had not been able to trace her. An FIR under Section 363 of IPC was registered on the aforesaid complaint made by Shri Ravinder Kumar.2. On 08.05.2010, SI Naveen Kumar of AATS (West), Paschim Vihar, received an information that a person, namely, Shyam Lal, residing in Village Sodawas, District Alwar or Rajasthan was en...
Tag this Judgment!Director, Enforcement Directorate Vs. Indrani Sanyal
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Decision:21. 01.2014 CRL. A. No.6 of 2010 DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sachin Datta, CGSC with Mr. Vineet Tayal & Mr. Vikram Aditya Narayan, Advs. versus MAYA SANYAL Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Anil Sapra, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Swati Sumbly & Mr. Dilip, Advs. CRL. A. No.7 of 2010 DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sachin Datta, CGSC with Mr. Vineet Tayal & Mr. Vikram Aditya Narayan, Advs. versus INDRANI SANYAL Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Anil Sapra, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Swati Sumbly & Mr. Dilip, Advs. CRL. A. No.10 of 2010 DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sachin Datta, CGSC with Mr. Vineet Tayal & Mr. Vikram Aditya Narayan, Advs. versus M/S. HOUSE OF SERVICES ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Anil Sapra, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Swati Sumbly & Mr. Dilip, Advs. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGEMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(Oral) A show cause memorandum dated...
Tag this Judgment!Standard Chartered Bank (China) Limited Shenzhen B Vs. State Bank of P ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + I.A. Nos. 11892/2010 and 14728/2010 in CS(OS) 312/2010 Reserved on:4. h October, 2013 Decided on:21. t January, 2014 % STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (CHINA) LIMITED SHENZHEN BRANCH ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Ajay Monga, Mr. Ateev K. Mathur and Mr. Devmani Bansal, Advocates. versus STATE BANK OF PATIALA & OTHERS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. V. Shankara, Advocate for Defendant No.1. Mr. R.K. Sanghi and Ms. Parul Singh, Advocates for Defendant No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 By these applications Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 seek leave to defend the suit filed by the Plaintiff under Order XXXVII CPC for recovery of USD18092.35 equivalent to Rs. 83,26,000/- along with pendent lite and future interest till actual realization.2. The Plaintiff is a company incorporated under the laws of China and is having one of its office at Shenzhen, China. Defendant No.1 is State Bank of Patiala having its Head Office at Patiala with various branches includ...
Tag this Judgment!Registrar of Companies Vs. Cyber Space Ltd.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:25. h November, 2013 Date of Decision:21st January, 2014 % + CO. APPL. 1261/2007 IN CO. PET. 354/2001 REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain, Advocate. versus CYBER SPACE LTD. Through: ..... Respondent Mr. P. Nagesh and Mr. Anand, Advocates. Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate for OL. Mr. Nitin Kumar and Mr. Hem Singh on behalf of applicant. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR JUDGMENT R.V. EASWAR, J.: CO. APPL. No.1261/2007 1. This is an application filed by one Anand Krishna Johari (the applicant) under Rule 6 read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1995 seeking setting aside of the order dated 14.09.2005 passed by this Court directing the final winding-up of the company, M/s. Cyber Space Ltd. (the company).2. The application came to be filed in these circumstances. A winding- up petition in CP3542001 was filed by the Registrar of Companies (ROC) under Section 433 (f) and (e) of the Companies Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Sudha Rani Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:21.01.2014. CRL.A. 900/2013 SUDHA RANI Through ..... Appellant Mr.Suresh Chander Jha, Adv. along with Mr. Amit Rao, brother of the appellant. versus STATE & ANR. Through ..... Respondents Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP along with SI Khajuri Khas. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) 1 The appellant is aggrieved by the acquittal order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 18.03.2013 acquitting the accused Rupesh Kumar of the charge under Section 376 of the IPC. 2 The story as unfolded is that the prosecutrix was married to the accused on 11.02.2004. On 15.03.2007, they were granted a divorce by a decree of mutual consent. This is also an admitted fact. This document was signed by both the parties. The contention of the prosecutrix was that this document had been obtained by her husband by fraud. Further submission of the prosecutirx being that after the date of divorce, she was forced to live in her...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Pawan Kumar Pandey and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 316/2013 STATE Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Additional Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Insp. Kanchan Lal, PS- Sangam Vihar versus PAWAN KUMAR PANDEY & ORS. Through None. ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA ORDER % 21.01.2014 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J (ORAL) Crl.M.A. No.9703/2013 (Delay) 1. By this application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner/ State is seeking condonation of delay of 197 days in filing the accompanying criminal leave to appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 197 days, in filing the accompanying petition seeking leave to appeal against the impugned judgment, is condoned.2. Application stands disposed of. CRL.L.P. 316/2013 1. The present Criminal Leave to Appeal has been preferred by the petitioner/State under section 378 (1) Cr.P.C. to challenge the...
Tag this Judgment!Director, Enforcement Directorate Vs. M/S. House of Services
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Decision:21. 01.2014 CRL. A. No.6 of 2010 DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sachin Datta, CGSC with Mr. Vineet Tayal & Mr. Vikram Aditya Narayan, Advs. versus MAYA SANYAL Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Anil Sapra, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Swati Sumbly & Mr. Dilip, Advs. CRL. A. No.7 of 2010 DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sachin Datta, CGSC with Mr. Vineet Tayal & Mr. Vikram Aditya Narayan, Advs. versus INDRANI SANYAL Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Anil Sapra, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Swati Sumbly & Mr. Dilip, Advs. CRL. A. No.10 of 2010 DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sachin Datta, CGSC with Mr. Vineet Tayal & Mr. Vikram Aditya Narayan, Advs. versus M/S. HOUSE OF SERVICES ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Anil Sapra, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Swati Sumbly & Mr. Dilip, Advs. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGEMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(Oral) A show cause memorandum dated...
Tag this Judgment!