Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 44 of about 723 results (0.011 seconds)Dda Vs. Sh. Ram Kumar Gupta and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:27. 11.2013 Pronounced on:15. 01.2014 + LPA No.2673/2005 .Appellant Through: Sh. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate. DDA Versus SH. RAM KUMAR GUPTA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr. G.Tushar Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pathak, Ms. Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, Mr. Praneet Singh, Advocates for Respondent No.2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal challenges a judgment and order of a learned Single Judge dated 04.03.2005 in WP(C) No.237/1999.2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was the owner of 9 bighas of land. That land was notified for acquisition on 10.11.1960, and the award was finalised on 29.11.1962, with the compensation paid subsequently. The petitioner applied for allotment of an alternative industrial plot under a scheme which enabled owners (whose land were subject of acquisition) on 21.07.1971. He was called upon...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Veena Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.369/2004 15th January, 2014 % SMT. VEENA Through: ......Appellant Mr. Kumar Mukesh, Advocate. VERSUS STATE AND ORS. Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2. 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 against the judgment of the probate Court dated 4.8.2004 by which the probate petition has been dismissed as being barred by limitation.2. The petition was dismissed after framing of preliminary issue of limitation. The relevant observations of the Court below holding the petition as barred by limitation are contained in paras 10 to 14 of the impugned judgment and which read as under:10. Statement of the petitioner was recorded under Order X CPC on 30.1.2004 before settlement of issues. It would be fruitful to reproduce the same hereunder for ready reference:Late Dewan Ram Gopal died in the year 1980. I am...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Singh Vs. Vinod Kumar and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:15. 01.2014 FAO(OS) 504/2013 & CM176242013 AJIT SINGH ..... Appellant versus VINOD KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Rajesh Yadav, Ms Chandrani Prasad and Mr Nakul Gandhi. For the Respondents : Mr Ankit Sibbal. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.10.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in IA No.20617/2012 in CS(OS) No.2661/2012. The said application was filed by the defendant/appellant herein under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint filed by the respondent/plaintiff. The suit is one for specific performance and injunction.2. By virtue of the impugned order the said application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed. While doing so the learned Single Judge considered the provisions of Section 17(1A) of the...
Tag this Judgment!Om Parkash Vs. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
$~R-8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:15th January, 2014 + CRL.A. 398/1998 OM PARKASH Through: ..... Appellant Mr.K.B. Andley, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.L. Yadav, Advocate versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) Through: Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL JUDGMENT SANJIV KHANNA J.(ORAL) 1. The appellant Om Parkash, by the impugned judgment dated 27.07.1998, has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(for short IPC) for murder of Vandana stated to be his second wife. Simultaneously, he has also been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. By order on sentence dated 28.07.1998, the appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment of life and fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.10,000/under Section 27 of the Arms Act. In default of payment of fine, he is to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three mo...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Vilas Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on:08.01.2014. Judgment delivered on 15.01.2014. CRL. APPEAL202006 RAM VILAS Through ..... Appellant Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Adv. versus STATE Through + ..... Respondent Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP CRL. APPEAL722006 ASHOK KUMAR Through versus ..... Appellant Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Adv. STATE Through + ..... Respondent Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP CRL. APPEAL802006 RAJU YADAV alias PAPPU Through ..... Appellant Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Adv. versus STATE Through ..... Respondent Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 There are three appellants before this Court. They are Raju Yadav, Ashok Kumar and Ram Vilas. They are aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 17.09.2005 and order on sentence dated 21.09.2005 vide which accused Raju Yadav and Ashok Kumar were convicted for the offence under Sections 394/34 read with Section 397 of the IPC. Raju Yadav and Ashok had been sentenced to under RI for a period of ...
Tag this Judgment!Savitri Devi Vs. Sohan Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:15. h January, 2014 % + CM(M) 1252/2013 SAVITRI DEVI Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Sunil Kumar Verma, Advocate with Petitioner in person. Versus SOHAN SINGH & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Pankaj Seth, Advocate for Respondent No.3/Insurance Company. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.. (Oral) CM No.........../2013 [(to be numbered) for exemption]. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. CM(M) 1252/2013 1. Notice issued.2. Mr.Pankaj Seth, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.3/Insurance Company.3. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking withdrawal/release of the amount lying in the form of FDR in her favour.4. For the aforesaid purpose, an application was moved by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 10.10.2013.5. Being aggrieved with the said...
Tag this Judgment!Swatanter Kumar Vs. the Indian Express Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
$~51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 102/2014 SWATANTER KUMAR Through ..... Plaintiff Mr.Mukul Rohatgi, Sr.Adv., Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, Sr.Adv., Mr.Rajiv Nayar, Sr.Adv., Mr.Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr.Adv., Mr.Vinay Bhasin, Sr.Adv., Mr.Maninder Singh, Sr.Adv., Mr.Kirti Uppal, Sr.Adv., Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Adv., Mr.Aman Lekhi, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Sudhir Walia, Mr.Ralan Karanjawala, Ms.Fareha Ahmad Khan, Mr.Abhijat, Mr.Mohit Mathur, Mr.P.Banerjee, Ms.Manmeet Arora, Ms.Meghna Mishra, Mr.Akshay Makhija, Mr.Ashish Dholakia, Mr.Abhimanya Mahajan, Ms.Mansi Sharma, Ms.Nidhi Parashar, Ms.Niyati Kohli & Mr.Varun Kumar Tikmani, Advs. versus THE INDIAN EXPRESS LTD. & ORS ..... Defendants Through Mr.Ashwani Mata, Sr.Adv. & Mr.Dinesh Dwivedi, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Vijay Sondhi, Mr.Kunal Tandon, Mr.Kapil Arora & Ms.Nidhi, Advs. for D-3. Dr.Saif Mahmood, Adv. for D-4. Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr.Sachin Datta, CGSC & Mr.Vineet Tayal, Adv. for D-6. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH % ORDER1501....
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Rasayan Finance Ltd. Vs. Ravi Chand Sindhu and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.254/2010 15th January, 2014 % BHARAT RASAYAN FINANCE LTD. ......Appellant Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Advocate. VERSUS RAVI CHAND SINDHU AND ANR. ...... Respondents Through: Col. Inder Jeet Singh, on behalf of respondent No.1. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The present appeal is filed against the judgment of the Court below dismissing the objections of the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as being barred by time. Objection petition under Section 34 has been found to be barred by time on the ground that the Award is dated 17.8.2009 and the objections under Section 34 have been filed on 27.11.2009 i.e after the three months period of passing of the Award.2. The Court below has clearly erred because as per Section 34(3) of the Act period of three months starts from receipt of the Award a...
Tag this Judgment!Khalid Qureshi Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :05. h DECEMBER, 2013 DECIDED ON :15. h JANUARY, 2014 + CRL.A. 326/2001 KHALID QURESHI Through : ....Appellant Ms.Suman Chauhan, Advocate. VERSUS THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .Respondent Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Khalid Qureshi (the appellant) challenges the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 29.03.2001 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.24/99 arising out of FIR No.106/99 PS Lajpat Nagar whereby he was convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC. By an order on sentence dated 09.04.2001, he was awarded RI for seven years with fine ` 10/under Section 392/397 IPC.2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 30.01.1999 at about 07.45 P.M. near District Park, opposite Kailash Hills, Kalkaji, he and his associate Jeetu Chaudhary @ Jitender (since acquitted) committed robbery and deprived Puran Singh and Jagannath...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate Bank Vs. K.S.Srivastava and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on January 09, 2014 Judgment Delivered on January 15, 2014 + W.P.(C) 1843/2000 SYNDICATE BANK Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate with Ms. Shweta, Advocate. versus K.S.SRIVASTAVA AND ANR. Represented by: ..... Respondent None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition by the Syndicate Bank is to the Award dated February 01, 2000 in LCA No.108 of 1995 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government, Labour Court (In short, the Court), New Delhi whereby the Court allowed the claim of the respondent No.2 whereby directing the petitioner to pay an amount of ` 44948.27 P as subsistence allowance.2. The case of the respondent No.2 was premised on the following facts: That he was suspended vide letter dated July 07, 1993. In terms of the suspension order, the petitioner bank has agreed to pay subsistence allowance as per Bipartite Settlement dated S...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- Next ›
- Last »