Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Khalid Vs. State N.C.T. Govt. of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :25. h November, 2013 DECIDED ON :13. h January, 2014 + CRL.A. 574/2001 KHALID ..... Appellant Through : Mr.Izhar Ahmad, Advocate for the appellant. Versus STATE N.C.T. GOVT. OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State. + CRL.A. 869/2001 HAQIKAT ALI ..... Appellant Through : Mr.Izhar Ahmad, Advocate for the appellant. Versus STATE N.C.T. GOVT. OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State. + CRL.A. 641/2001 ROHTAS KUMAR & ORS. ..... Appellants Through : Mr.Izhar Ahmad, Advocate for the appellants. Versus STATE N.C.T. GOVT. OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Zakir Hussain (A-1), Rohtash Kumar (A-2), Khalid (A-3), Karan Kapoor @ Karan Singh (A-4), Haqiqat Ali (A-5) and Nayum (A-6) were arrested in case FIR No.275/97 by the police of Malviya Nagar and sent for trial on the allegations that in the night interveni...
Brij Mohan Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:06. 01.2014 Judgment delivered on:13.01.2014 CRL.A. 108/2007 BRIJ MOHAN ..... Appellant Through Mr. Yudhishter Kahol, Mr. Kunal Kahol, Mr. Manjeet Godora, Mr.Archit Arora and Ms. Aarushi Agarwal, Advs. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent Through Mr. P.K. Sharma, standing counsel for the CBI along with Mr. A.K. Singh, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 23.01.2007 and 29.01.2007 respectively wherein the appellant had been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)((d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act); he had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishabl...
J. Renugadevi and ors. Vs. Religare Finvest Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO No.12/2014 & conn. matters 13th January, 2014 % 1. FAO No.12/2014 & C.M. Nos.574/2014(exemption) & 575/2014 (stay) J.RENUGADEVI & ORS. Through: ......Appellants Mr. G.S. Mani, Advocate. VERSUS RELIGARE FINVEST LTD. Through:2. ...... Respondent Mr. Ajay Uppal, Advocate. FAO No.13/2014 & C.M. Nos.576/2014(exemption) & 577/2014 (stay) J.RENUGADEVI & ORS. Through: ......Appellants Mr. G.S. Mani, Advocate. VERSUS RELIGARE FINVEST LTD. Through:3. ...... Respondent Mr. Ajay Uppal, Advocate. FAO No.14/2014 & C.M. Nos.579/2014(exemption) & 580/2014 (stay) J.RENUGADEVI & ORS. Through: ......Appellants Mr. G.S. Mani, Advocate. VERSUS RELIGARE FINVEST LTD. Through: FAO No.12 /2014 & conn. matters ...... Respondent Mr. Ajay Uppal, Advocate. Page 1 of 6 4. FAO No.15/2014 & C.M. Nos.581/2014(exemption) & 582/2014 (stay) J.RENUGADEVI & ORS. Through: ......Appellants Mr. G.S. Mani, Advocate. VERSUS RELIGARE FINVEST LTD. Through:5. ...... Respondent Mr. Aj...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Biro Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: January 13, 2014 + MAC.APP. 732/2006 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. L.K.Tyagi, Advocate. Versus BIRO DEVI & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Ashok Popli, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.1. Vide the present appeal, the appellant/Insurance Company has assailed the impugned award dated 04.07.2006, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.11,30,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization of the amount.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.05.1998 at about 9.40 pm, deceased Jasbir Singh was going on his motorcycle bearing registration No.DL-1SK-0107 cautiously and in a normal speed. All of a sudden, a Tempo bearing registration No.DL-1LB-6247 driven by respondent No.5 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit against his motorcy...
Sh. Ramesh Chander (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs Vs. Smt. Kaushalya R ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.460 /2006 13th January, 2014 % SH. RAMESH CHANDER (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS AND ORS. ......Appellants Through: Mr. Ranjit Singh, Advocate. VERSUS SMT. KAUSHALYA RANI AND ANR. ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Anil Gera, Advocate. 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 has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against the judgment of the appellate Court dated 28.8.2006 whereby the appellate Court sustained the judgment of the trial Court dated 17.5.2004 dismissing the suit for declaration, possession and injunction filed by the appellants/plaintiffs. By the suit, appellants/plaintiffs prayed for declaration for declaring as null and void the judgment and decree dated 7.12.1973 passed by the civil Court in favour of the respondent no.1 herein-defendant no.1 in the trial Court.2. I may note that this appeal is no doubt a second appeal u...
Arun Dev Builders Vs. Shiv Raj Kumar
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
SALMA NOOR, MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the OP of the case No.336/2011 is directed against the order dated 18.1.2013 of the CDRF-IV, Nand Nagar, Delhi whereby the complaint of the respondent was allowed and the OP/Appellant was directed to refund Rs.1,63,000/- together with 9% interest from the date of deposit till its final payment.2. The appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal 3. We have heard Shri Mukul Kumar, Counsel for the Appellant and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 4. It is very poorly drafted application. No period of delay sought to be condoned is mentioned in the condonation application.? As per our calculation there is a delay of 100 days. 5. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant is that arguments were heard in his presence and the order was reserved without fixing a date for order and he came to know about the order only on ?4.7.2013 when Sh. Mukul Kumar, who was appearing in some ...
Sh. Suresh Chander Gahlawat, New Delhi Vs. National Technical Research ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A). Following relief has been sought in this O.A.:- (i) To quash and set aside the impugned order dated 4.9.2012 (Annexure A-1). to declare the action of the respondents in reverting the applicant from the post of Sr. Security Officer to Security Officer as illegal and arbitrary. To allow the OA with costs. To pass any other further orders as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.? 2. Facts of the case are that the applicant retired from the Indian Air Force in September, 2006. W.e.f. 20.12.2007 the applicant was appointed as Security Officer, National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) against quota of ex-serviceman on re-employment basis after going through the selection process. In the year 2009 the respondents initiated process for appointment to the post of Administrative Officer/Senior Security Officer. The applicant also applied for the same. In his application he also gave the necessary details of his academic as well as educational qualifica...
Arvind V. Aswal and Others Arihant Realtors and Others
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
1. This is an Application filed by the Appellants for condonation of delay in filing of the Appeal under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. They submit that they have acted vigilantly and the Appeal is preferred within the timeframe, though there is delay of 7days caused due to certain justifiable grounds, and as such, they seek condonation of delay. The Appellants are hereafter referred to as œApplicants?. They filed Appeal No.77 of 2013, being aggrieved by the order of Environment Clearance (EC) dated 20th February, 2013, passed by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). The SEIAA, granted EC to the Respondent No.1 (M/s Arihant Realtors) for construction project of the Respondent No.7, Pandit (SRA) Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. 2. Briefly stated, the background facts of the case are that there was proposal of œPandit (SRA) CHS Ltd?, Residential cum Commercial Project, under the Slum Rehabilitation Authoritys Development Scheme. The...
Mool Chand Dabas Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Its Chief Secretary ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
P.K. Basu, Member (A): 1. The applicant joined the office of respondent as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) on 1.04.1982 after promotion from MCD and retired on 31.01.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation. According to a Scheme of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), such teachers are entitled for re-employment for two years. According to the applicant, he is eligible for re-employment and applied so on 28.12.2012, which should have been decided by 31.12.2012. The decision was taken on his request for re-employment on 2.03.2013 and copy thereof was handed over to him on 4.03.2013. The applicant gave representation on 6.03.2013 and legal notice on 30.03.2013 but no decision has been taken so far by the respondents. This OA has, therefore, been filed seeking relief that order dated 2.03.2013 by which his request for re-employment has been rejected, be quashed and set aside and he be re-employed from 1.02.2013 for two years, with pay and allowances along with...
Mahender Pal, Delhi and Others Vs. the Commissioner, the North Delhi M ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Member (A): 1. The applicants of this OA had first entered into employment with the Delhi Development Authority (DDA, in short) and had helped the DDA in developing new colonies. Later on, after allocation of houses in those colonies to the allottees concerned, when those colonies were fully developed and got transferred to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD, in short), the services of the applicants also got transferred to the respective MCD Zones, now trifurcated into three separate MCDs, two of which are party-respondents in the instant case, along with Respondent No.3, DDA. The applicants are Malis and Chowkidars whose services had got absorbed on transfer to the MCD in accordance with Resolution No.207 dated 29.03.1989 of the Standing Committee of the then MCD. There was no grievance on the date of their transfers from DDA to MCD, as the applicants continued to get the same salary as their counterparts who had continued to be working in the DDA. Problem ...
- ‹ Prev
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- Next ›
- Last »