Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 46 of about 723 results (0.012 seconds)R.P. Khosla and anr. Vs. Honble Company Law Board and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:22. 10.2013 Pronounced on:15. 01.2014 + Review Pet. 526/2013 & CM Nos. 14330, 14331 & 14332/2013 in WP(C) No.5889/2013 .Petitioners R.P. KHOSLA & ANR. Through: Mr. Deepak Khosla, Advocate. Versus HONBLE COMPANY LAW BOARD & ORS. Respondents Through: Sh. Nishant Datta and Ms. Garima Hooda, Advocates, for Resp. No.1. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. This a review petition filed against the order and judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.5889/2013, dated 1.10.2013. In this writ petition, directions were sought, inter alia, to the Company Law Board to frame regulations in respect of lodging caveats before that body (hereafter the CLB) as well as to this Court, to regulate filing of caveats, under Section 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). More specifically, a direction was sought that some orders of the CLB made are a nullity, and therefore, liable to be qu...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Preeti Satija Vs. Smt. Raj Kumari and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:16. 12.2013 Pronounced on:15. 01.2014 + RFA (OS) 24/2012, C.M. APPL.4236/2012, 4237/2012 & 5451/2013 SMT. PREETI SATIJA .Appellant Through: Sh. Sudhir Mendiratta, Advocate. Versus SMT. RAJ KUMARI AND ANR. Respondents Through: Sh. Nishant Datta and Ms. Garima Hooda, Advocates, for Resp. No.1. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The defendant appeals the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge, who decreed the suit preferred by the respondentplaintiff, her mother in law, on admission, by invoking Order XII Rule 6, Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The plaintiff had sought a decree for possession/eviction of the defendant/daughter-in-law.2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for possession, permanent injunction and mesne profits against the defendants, her son and mother in-law, in respect of a portion of property bearing No.2245, Hudson Lane, GTB Nagar, Kingsway ...
Tag this Judgment!Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr. Vs. the Shreeyans Educational Society a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:31. 10.2013 Pronounced on:15. 01.2014 + LPA167071/2006 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. ..... Appellants Through: Ms. Tania Ahlawat, for Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate. versus THE SHREEYANS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Sh. Anil Sapra, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Tanuj Khurana, Sh. Gaurav Malik and Ms. Rupali Kapoor, Advocates, for Resp. No.1. Ms. Shobhana Takiar with Ms. Ritagya Ruhi, Advocates, for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. These appeals by the Government of NCT of Delhi (hereafter referred to as the GNCT) challenges a judgment and order of a learned Single Judge dated 04.05.2006. The impugned judgment quashed an order of the GNCT of 02.04.2004 which withdrew the sponsorship of Shreeyans Educational Society (hereafter referred to as Shreeyans), the first respondent, which then approached the Court in writ proceedings. Shreeyan...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Deva Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.291/2012 15th January, 2014 % UNION OF INDIA Through: ......Appellant Ms. Shilpa Singh, Advocate. VERSUS DEVA SINGH AND ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Mr. S.S. Sisodia, Advocate CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM118552012 (for condonation of delay) For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 36 days in filing the appeal is condoned CM stands disposed of. FAO No.291/2012 1. Challenge by means of this first appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is to the impugned judgment dated 28.2.2012 which has allowed the claim petition filed by the respondentappellant who is the dependent of the deceased Sh. Ajay. Sh. Ajay died in an untoward incident stated to have occurred on 15.3.2010. The deceased left behind his parents, his two minor daughters and a minor son. The wife of the deceased had already expired on 25.5.2008. The decease...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Cantonment Board Vs. Smt. Raj Kumari Sachdeva and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:28. 11.2013 Pronounced on:15. 01.2014 + LPA No.434/2009 & CM No.2224/2010 DELHI CANTONMENT BOARD .Appellant Versus SMT. RAJ KUMARI SACHDEVA & ORS. + Respondents LPA No.403/2010 & C.M. No.10850/2010 (Stay) DELHI CANTONMENT BOARD .Appellant Versus SMT. ANUVERSHA & Ors. + Respondents W.P. (C) No.614/2010 SMT. RAJINDER KAUR & ORS. .. Petitioner Versus DELHI CANTONMENT BOARD .. Respondent Through: Mr. DSouza Philip, Standing Counsel with Mr. Sunil Satyarth, Advocates for the appellant. Ms. Anu Bagai, Advocate for respondents and petitioners in WP(C) No.614/2010. Mr. R.N. Singh with Mr. P.K. Singh, Advocates, for applicant in CM No.15841/2013. Mr. Nitendra Sharma, Advocate, for Respondent in LPA No.403/10 CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI LPA Nos.434/09, 403/10 & WP(C) No.614/10 Page 1 MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The present common judgment disposes off a set of appeals in respect of the order ...
Tag this Judgment!Anupam Sharma Vs. Union of India Thr. Gm Northern Railway
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.345/2012 15th January, 2014 % ANUPAM SHARMA Through: ......Appellant Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THR. GM NORTHERN RAILWAY ...... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This matter was called out in the pre-lunch session but no one appeared for the respondent though counsel for the appellant was present. Even on the second call after lunch although it is 2.50 PM, no one appears for the respondent. I have therefore heard the counsel for the appellant and after perusing the record am proceeding to dispose of the appeal.2. This first appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment dated 27.2.2012 by which the claim petition filed by the applicant /appellant was dismissed. The Railway Claims Tribunal by the impugned judgment has held that compensation cannot be awa...
Tag this Judgment!Uoi and ors Vs. Daya Krishna Sharma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.7082/2013 & CM No.15282/2013 Date of Decision:15. h January, 2014 UOI AND ORS ..... Petitioners Through Mr.R.V. Sinha, Adv. versus DAYA KRISHNA SHARMA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr.Seva Ram, Adv. with Mr.C.S. Walia, Adv. for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J (Oral) 1. The respondents before us had assailed by way of OA No.4028/2011 the action of the petitioners in failing to communicate adverse remarks in their Annual Confidential Report for the period 199899 & 1999-2000 which were relied upon by them for denying promotion to them for the post of Deputy Secretary with the Government of India. A further prayer was made for inclusion of their name in the select list for the post of Deputy Secretary for the year 2003. The petition filed by the respondents was allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi by the order pronounced on 21st Mar...
Tag this Judgment!i.C. Sharma Vs. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President: 1. The facts of the case are that the complainant who lives in House No. 144/B, Block-D, Freedom Fighter Enclave, New Delhi, for obtaining a House Holder insurance policy from the OP Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., made a proposal, along with list of articles, giving the description and details of clothings, kitchenware, furniture, miscellaneous items Gold Jewellery, Electrical appliances cameras etc. to be insured to the OP Insurance Co. The OP Insurance Co. insured the goods for different amounts for the sum insured for a year. Thereafter in subsequent years continuously the complainant got the insurance agreement renewed from the OP Insurance Company, and till 2006, the OP Insurance Company insured him by issuing the following insurance cover (policy schedule) showing item wise sum insured:-ITEM WISE SUM INSURED ItemDescriptionSectionSum InsuredBuildingHouse No.144B, Block-D, Freedom Fighters Enclave N Delhi-681A2000000.00Miscellaneous ItemsAS per L...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Videocon Industries Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. I have heard both the sides. It is seen that the name of the company, M/s. Electrolux Kelvinator Ltd. was changed to M/s. Electrolux Kelvinator Appliances Ltd. (M/s. EKL Appliances Ltd). Though the said company was merged with Videocon Industries Ltd., the period of disputes is before the merger.2. M/s. Electrolux Kelvinator Ltd. was manufacturing refrigerators and were availing the benefit of CENVAT credit of duty paid on various inputs and capital goods. When the change in the name of the manufacturing unit, the newly named unit continued to avail the benefit of CENVAT credit obtained by the manufacturing unit prior to change in its name. 3. In the above back-ground, Show Cause Notice was issued proposing denial of CENVAT credit on the ground that in terms of Rule 10 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, credit can be availed by the new unit only when the jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner is satisfied that the inputs and the capital goods were also transferred to t...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Basit Vs. M/S. Tuberose Estaes Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
S.A. SIDDIQUI(ORAL JUDGEMENT): 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act) against the judgment and order dated 05.12.2008 passed by District Forum- X, Udyog Sadan, C-22 and 23 Institutional Area, (Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi “ 16 in Complaint Case No. 860/05 (1463/04). 2. Brief facts of the case are that OP, an estate developer and builder working under the name and style M/s Tubrose Estate Pvt. Ltd. OP developed a commercial complex namely œEnkay Tower? situated at Vanijiya Nikunj, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgoan, Haryana. The Appellant Abdul Basit and his two brothers, Abdul Waseem and Abdul Azim purchased flat Nos. 221, 222 and 223 in œEnkay Tower? situated at Vanijiya Nikunj, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgoan, Haryana from the Respondent vide agreement of Provisional allotment dated 27.1.05. It has been alleged by the complainant/appellant that at the time of sale of flats respondent/OP had assured him t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- Next ›
- Last »