Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Shiv Pujan Vs. State Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:16.01.2014. CRL.A. 287/2011 SHIV PUJAN Through ..... Appellant Appellant with his counsel Mr.Ashitesh Gupta, Adv. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI Through + ..... Respondent Ms. Fizani Husain, APP along with Inspector Suraj Bhan CRL.A. 1122/2011 & Crl. M. (B) No.108/2014 RAM SUNDER Through ..... Appellant Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Adv. With Ms. Aeshna Dhaiya, Adv. versus STATE Through ..... Respondent Ms. Fizani Husain, APP along with Inspector Suraj Bhan Gautam. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) 1 The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 20.11.2010 and 24.11.2010 vide which appellant Ram Sunder had been convicted for the offence under Sections 363/366/376 of the IPC. He had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer RI for a period of 1 month for the offence under Section 363 ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sunita and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.227/2008 % SMT. SUNITA & ORS. Through:16. h January, 2014 ...... Appellants Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Jitendra Kr. Singh and Mr.Anirudh Kumar, Advocates . 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 first appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is to the impugned judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 10.3.2008 by which the claim petition of the appellants-applicants was dismissed. Appellants-applicants are the widow and children of the deceased Sh. Surender Kumar, an employee of Supreme Court, who died in an untoward incident of a fall from the train at about 9.05 A.M on 1.8.2006 in Delhi near Red Fort.2. Whereas the case of the appellants/applicants was that the deceased Sh. Surender Kumar died on account of untoward incident because he was pushed out b...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajeet Kaur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
$~R17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:16. h January, 2014 + MAC.A.857/2006 M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Ms. Khyati Sharma and Ms. Sonia Sharma, Advocates. Versus AJEET KAUR AND ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 26.07.2006, whereby the learned Tribunal had granted compensation for a sum of Rs.1,93,000/- for the death of Baljinder Singh, who met with an accident on 16.12.1999 and died on 18.12.1999.2. Vide the instant appeal, the only ground urged by the appellant/Insurance Company is that the injuries of the deceased were not fatal; therefore, he had not died due to the injuries received in the accident. However, the learned Tribunal erred in granting the compensation for death of the deceased.3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumari Devi and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.332/2013 % RAJ KUMARI DEVI & ORS. Through:16. h January, 2014 ...... Appellants Mr. Rajnish K. Jha, Advocate. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Baldev Malik and Mr. Arjun Malik, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This first appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 5.11.2012 by which the claim petition has been dismissed.2. Before I refer to the observations of the Railway Claims Tribunal I am pained to note as to how Railway Claims Tribunal in certain cases takes an unnecessary and irrelevant hyper technical approach so as to find out some or the other fault in a claim petition for dismissing of the same. This I am constrained to observe FAO3322013 inasmuch as the whole purpose of the Railway Page 1 of 8 Claims Tribunal is defeate...
Tag this Judgment!Sirjan Pal Singh Vs. Harminder Singh Bakshi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.286/2012 16th January, 2014 % SIRJAN PAL SINGH Through: ......Appellant Mr. D.P. Bhatia, Advocate. VERSUS HARMINDER SINGH BAKSHI & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Peeyush Kalra, Advocate for respondent No.1. 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 Order 43(1)(l) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) the appellant impugns the order of the probate Court dated 19.9.2008 by which the probate Court dismissed the application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC filed by the appellant herein and who was the applicant before the probate Court.2. The facts of the case are that the original petitioner in the probate petition was one Sh. Prahlad Singh Bakshi, husband of the deceased testator Smt. Sujan Kaur. Sh. Prahlad Singh Bakshi sought probate petition with respect to the Will dated 22.1.1996 executed by his late wife. The appellant Sh. Sirja...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Carriers Ltd. Vs. Fayez Sekh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.98/2013 & CM No.3257/2013 (Stay) % BHARAT CARRIERS LTD. Through:16. h January, 2014 ...... Appellant Mr. K.P.Singh, Advocate. VERSUS FAYEZ SEKH & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Ms. Pratibha Nain Chauhan, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The present appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 impugns the order dated 27.11.2012 passed by the Commissioner imposing a penalty of 50% under Section 4A of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.2. The only argument urged on behalf of the appellant/employer is that the claim of penalty in the main case was in fact made by the dependants of the workman, and who were the applicants before the Commissioner in the main compensation claim, but that claim petition was allowed in terms of the order dated 10.8.2010 without allowing the prayer of penalty, and therefore, it is argued that this...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Ashikian Qureshi Vs. D.D.A. Through Its Chairman and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1364/2013 and CM APPL. 6324/2013 Decided on 16.01.2014 IN THE MATTER OF : MOHD. ASHIKIAN QURESHI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. M.M. Kashyap, Advocate versus D.D.A. THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate with Mr. D. Ray Chaudhury, Advocate for R-1/DDA. Mr. G.D. Mishra, Advocate for R-2/SDMC. Ms. Mumtaz Ahmed and Mr. Brij Lal, Advocates for the applicant in CM APPL. 6324/2013. CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for issuance of directions to the respondents No.1 to 3 to restrain all persons from parking their cars in front of Madini Masjid, near Gate No.7, Alaknanda Apartments, Alaknanda, New Delhi, and further, take steps to remove the boundary wall allegedly raised in an illegal manner and without obtaining any permission from the concerned authorities.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Jaipur-i Vs. M/S. Acme Bright Bars
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by C.C.E.(Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard Shri U.K. Srivastava, Ld. Departmental Representative appearing for Revenue and Shri Manpreet Singh, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. As per facts on record, a unit under name and style of M/s. Shri Purohit Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bhiwadi was operating from the same land at which the respondents factory is located. As per certain orders passed by the Revenue, a demand of Rs.21.80 lakhs (inclusive of interest and penalty) was outstanding against M/s. Shri Purohit Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. The plant and machinery of the said assessee was taken over by M/s. Rajasthan Financial Corporation and remained in their possession from 30.11.2000 to 19.09.2002. Thereafter, the same was purchased by one M/s. Prabhu Steels (P) Ltd., who operated from there during the period 28.04.2005 to 06.03.2006. The same was again taken over by M/s. Rajasth...
Tag this Judgment!Ashwani Kumar Sharma Vs. Secretary (R) Cabinet Sectt and Another
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
Oral Order: G. George Paracken, M(J): 1. The applicant has filed this Original Application seeking the following reliefs:- œ8.1To direct the Respondent No.1 to make payment of arrears of Foreign Allowance (local servant allowance component) to the applicant for the period 29.06.2002 to 23.03.2006 at the rates prescribed under para 3 of item V of various Foreign Allowance orders issued by the Ministry of External Affairs on 12.06.2002, 20.05.2003, 28.07.2004, 17.03.2005 and 07.02.2005 with interest thereon. 8.2 To allow arrears of Rs.4,85,773/- as local servant allowance competent and Rs.3,25,183/- as interest on the arrears.? 2. The facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Vice Consul in the rank of Attache, in the Consulate of India, Munich, Germany during the period from 29.06.2002 to 23.02.2006. According to him, on his returning from deputation to RandAW i.e. his parent department he was entitled for arrears of servant allowance for the aforesaid period to th...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Kulshreshtha, New Delhi Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, Min ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
Dr. B. K. Sinha, Member (A): 1. The issue involved in the instant case is simply that whether the applicant was posted as Superintending Engineer (Planning and Administration) alone or he was given the additional charge of the Superintending Engineer of the concerned Circle during the period under consideration. 2. The applicant was charged that while being posted as Superintending Engineer (PandA) in the Border Fencing Zone, CPWD during the period from 01.03.2003 to 29.06.2007 he failed to transfer one Sunil Kumar Mandotia who had been working as Cashier w.e.f. 28.08.1998 in violation of provisions of Section 8 Chapter IV of the CPWD Manual, Volume-I regarding inter-changing of staff from sensitive to non-sensitive posts every three years. As per the provisions, Superintending Engineers were empowered to grant exemption from transfer upto a maximum period of one year where exceptional circumstances warrant. Later Sunil Kumar Mandotia was involved in an embezzlement of a huge amount of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- Next ›
- Last »