Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 31 of about 723 results (0.021 seconds)Kapil Gupta Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on: January 21, 2014 + CS(OS) 1947/2011 KAPIL GUPTA Through ..... Plaintiff Mr.Harish Malhotra, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Rajender Agarwal, Adv. versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ..... Defendant Through Mr.S.S.Katyal, Adv. with Mr.Sanjay Katyal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(ORAL) 1. The plaintiff filed the suit for possession and recovery of future mesne profits/damages for unauthorized use and occupation of the premises bearing No.A-10, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015. Issues in the above said matter were framed on 26th September, 2012. Parties were granted time to file their lists of witnesses within six weeks. It was also directed on the said date that the affidavits by way of evidence would be filed by the plaintiff within the same period. The plaintiff filed the affidavit as evidence on 30 th November, 2012. After that, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC...
Tag this Judgment!Mustqeem Vs. Mohd. Yasin
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.16/2014 & CM No.1155/2014 (for stay) 21st January, 2014 % MUSTQEEM Through: ......Appellant Mr. Ravi Dev Sharma, Advocate. VERSUS MOHD. YASIN ...... Respondent Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This regular second appeal impugns the concurrent judgments of the courts below by which the suit of the respondent-landlord for possession has been decreed against the appellant/tenant under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.2. It is not disputed before this Court that the suit premises do not fall within the Delhi Rent Control Act, inasmuch as, for the village of Jafrabad there is no notification extending the application of the Delhi Rent Control Act to such area. Therefore, the civil courts will admittedly have jurisdiction. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is not disputed and nor is the serving of the legal notice under Section 106 of the Tran...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok @ Pappu Vs. State (Gnct of Delhi)
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!State Vs. Pappu Kumar
Court: Delhi
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:21.01.2014. CRL.REV. PET. 3/2013 STATE ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Varun Goswami, APP along with SI Vipin Kumar. versus PAPPU KUMAR ..... Respondent Through Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Sharma, Mr. Vaibhav Sharma and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) 1 The State is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.05.2012 wherein the respondent Pappu Kumar has been discharged. 2 Record shows that the present FIR No.1171/2006 had been registered on the complaint of K.P. Singh; initial complaint which was on the intervening night of 27.12.2006-28.12.2006 which was to the effect that Varun (since deceased) is missing. Thereafter the dead body of Varun was recovered on 04.01.2007. The FIR which had initially been registered under Sections 365/120-B/34 of the IPC was converted to an offence under Section 302 of the IPC in addition to the offences already noted...
Tag this Judgment!Javed @ Galla Phad Vs. State Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :15. h January, 2014 DECIDED ON :21. t January, 2014 + CRL.A. 831/2012 & Crl.M.B.No.1329/2012 JAVED @ GALLA PHAD Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Vaibhav Sharma, Amicus Curiae. VERSUS STATE NCT OF DELHI Through : ..... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Javed @ Galla Phad (the appellant), Amarjeet (Proclaimed Offender), Bantoo @ Dev Prakash (Proclaimed Offender), Satpal, Jairam Dass and Suresh (all acquitted) were arrested by the police of Police Station Uttam Nagar in case FIR No.952/2005 and sent for trial on the allegations that on 19.10.2005 in between 03.00 A.M. to 03.30A.M. at plot No.20, Matiala Extension, Uttam Nagar, they committed robbery and deprived Rajbir Bhargav, owner of the factory, teeth yokes, bearings and electric motors using deadly weapons. It was further alleged that on 23.12.2005 Javed @ Galla Phad, Amarjeet, Bantoo @ Dev Prakash were apprehended and arrested. Pursuant t...
Tag this Judgment!Director, Enforcement Directorate Vs. Maya 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!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashwani Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.261/2010 & CM No.12701/2010 (Stay) 21st January, 2014 % UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ......Appellant Through: Mr. Vishwendra Verma and Ms. Shivali, Advocates. VERSUS ASHWANI KUMAR & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Ms. Sanjeeda Khurana, Adv. for R-2. SI Ravinder , P.S.Alipur. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This first appeal has been filed by the insurance company under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 impugning the judgment of the Employees Commissioner dated 19.1.2010 which has allowed the claim of the dependants of the deceased Sh. Raj Kumar.2. The facts of the case are that the deceased Sh. Raj Kumar was an employee of respondent no.2 herein namely Sh. Raman Kumar and who was the respondent no.1 before the Commissioner. The deceased was directed to drive the truck bearing no.DL-1GA-6972 to Barwala (Panchkula) at 9.00 PM on 17.12.1997...
Tag this Judgment!Raju @premi Lal (Since Deceased) Thr.L.Rs Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % FAO No.39/2013 21st January, 2014 RAJU @PREMI LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THR.L.RS ......Appellants Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Mr. Dinkar Singh, 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 filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the appellant impugns the order dated 8.11.2012 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal whereby the Railway Claims Tribunal set aside its original judgment dated 29.7.2011 by which compensation was awarded to the deceased Sh. Raju. The compensation award has been set aside only on the ground that at the stage of final arguments, the original claimant Sh. Raju had expired but his legal heirs were not brought on record and therefore, the award of compensation dated 29.7.2011 has to be set aside.2. I may note that Supreme Court in the case of...
Tag this Judgment!Krishan Kumar Vs. Canara Bank and anr
Court: Delhi
* % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:21. 01.2014 + W.P.(C) 409/2014 and CM No.805/2014 KRISHAN KUMAR ..... PETITIONER VERSUS CANARA BANK & ANR ..... RESPONDENTS ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE: For the Petitioner: Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate For the Respondents: CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J1 This is a petition filed seeking broadly the following directions :1.1. A writ of certiorari to quash the letter dated 30.07.2013, issued by respondent no.1/bank cancelling the candidature of the petitioner for the post of :Agriculture Field Officer, Scale-I. 1.2. A writ of certiorari to quash respondent no.2s letter dated 05.09.2013, declining to re-allot the petitioner, to some other participating organization. 1.3. A writ of mandamus qua respondents to either issue an offer of appointment to the petitioner with respondent no.1 or else re-allot the petitioner, to some other participating organization. 1.4 There is a prayer made for costs...
Tag this Judgment!Rahul Gupta Vs. Union of India and anr
Court: Delhi
#43 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 457/2014 RAHUL GUPTA Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through ..... Respondents Mr. Jatan Singh, CGSC Date of Decision :21. t January, 2014 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) CM APPL. 884/2014 in W.P.(C) 457/2014 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 457/2014 & CM APPL. 883/2014 1. Present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to issue a passport to the petitioner in accordance with law.2. In the writ petition, it is averred that respondent No.2 has refused to issue a passport to the petitioner only on the ground that petitioners Adoption Deed dated 20th September, 1989 has not been registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar.3. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner submits that as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, adoption deed is not required to be registered compulsorily.4. Ho...
Tag this Judgment!