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.
Pawan Gupta @ Pawan Kumar @ Parveen Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.294/2013 & CM No10588/2013 (addl. Evidence) 9th January , 2014 % PAWAN GUPTA @ PAWAN KUMAR @ PARVEEN KUMAR ......Appellants Through: Mr. Amit Parashar and Mr. Jitender Vashist, Advocates. VERSUS STATE ...... Respondent Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The appellant was the petitioner in a petition filed in the trial court for grant of letter of administration to the estate of the deceased one Sh. Lakhmi Chand. The letter of administration was claimed to the estate of Sh. Lakhmi Chand who was the owner of a plot admeasuring 48 sq. mtrs., Plot No.28, Pocket No.2, Block Nil, Sector-22, Rohini, Delhi. Appellant-petitioner claimed himself to be the son of the deceased Lakhmi Chand. Appellantpetitioner however claims that he had three names i.e Pawan Gupta, Pawan Kumar and Parveen Kumar and which have been disbelieved by the trial court.2. The relevant obs...
Vijay Sunar Vs. North Delhi Power Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI R-5 + CRIMINAL APPEAL No.720 of 2007 VIJAY SUNAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. O.S. Soran, Advocate. versus NORTH DELHI POWER LIMITED .... Respondent Through: Mr. Vikram Nandrajog with Mr. Sushil Jaswal and Mr. Sheetesh Khanna, Advocates. And R-8 + CRIMINAL APPEAL No.23 of 2008 NORTH DELHI POWER LIMITED .... Appellant Through: Mr. Vikram Nandrajog with Mr. Sushil Jaswal and Mr. Sheetesh Khanna, Advocates. versus VIJAY SUNAR ..... Respondent Through: Mr. O.S. Soran, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR % ORDER0901.2014 1. Criminal Appeal No.720 of 2007 filed by Mr. Vijay Sunar is directed against the impugned judgment dated 11th October 2007 and the order of sentence dated 17th October 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) [Electricity]. in Complaint Case No.34 of 2006 convicting the Appellant of the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (EA), sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years ...
R.K. Pabbi Vs. Dda and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on: January 09, 2014 + CS(OS) No.1368/2012 R.K.PABBI ..... Plaintiff Through Mr.Vivekanand, Adv. versus DDA & ANR Through ..... Respondents Mr.Pawan Mathur, Adv. along with Mr.Gupta, Ex. Engineer, DDA in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.75,06,899/- under Section XXXVII CPC against the defendants.2. Upon service, certain applications have been filed by the parties, the details of which are given as under:(i) I.A. No.14223/2012 (under Order XXXVII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC) filed by defendant No.1/DDA for its appearance. (ii) I.A. No.14224/2012 (under Order XXXVII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC) filed by defendant No.2/Executive Engineer (Electrical), DDA for his appearance. (iii) I.A. No.15182/2012 (under Order XXXVII Rule 3(4) CPC) filed by the plaintiff for issuance of summons for judgment. (iv) I.A. No.19668/2012 (under Ord...
Jai Singh and anr Vs. Man Singh and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA4132009 Decided on 09.01.2014 IN THE MATTER OF : JAI SINGH AND ANR ..... Appellants Through: Mrs. Rekha Palli, Advocate with Ms. Amrita Prakash and Ms. Ankita Patnaik, Advs. versus MAN SINGH AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Kamal Jit Chhiber, Advocate CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral) CM APPL. 19404/2013 (by the respondents/defendants u/O XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC and Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act) 1. The present application has been filed by the respondents/defendants praying inter alia for permission to produce additional documentary evidence.2. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants states that his clients had filed photocopies of twenty five documents under an index dated 22.05.2002, which was subsequent to their filing the written statement in the trial court. The said list of documents includes copies of the lease deeds dated 11.08.1953 and 11.02.1954 executed by the Delhi Imp...
Yfc Projects P.Ltd. Vs. Uoi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:09. 01.2014 W.P.(C) 1342/2008 YFC PROJECTS P.LTD. ..... Petitioner versus UOI ..... Respondent W.P.(C) 859/2008 G.D.BUILDTECH P.LTD. ..... Petitioner versus UOI ..... Respondent W.P.(C) 4116/2008 VISTAR CONSTRUCTIONS (P) LTD ..... Petitioner versus UOI ..... Respondent W.P.(C) 6058/2008 SKYLINE ENGINEERING CONTRACTS (INDIA)(P) LTD ..... Petitioner versus UOI & ORS ..... Respondents W.P.(C) 6803/2013 NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CIROIRATUIB KUNUTED (NBCC) ..... Petitioner versus UOI & ANR WP(C) 1342/2008 & Ors. Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr J.K. Mittal with Mr Varun Gaba. For the Respondents : Mr Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr Mukesh Anand, Standing Counsel, Ms Anjana Gosain and Mr Ashish Virmani for R-1/UOI in these writ petitions. Ms Sonia Sharma with Mr Sonakshi Dhiman for R-2 in WP(C) Nos.6058/2008 & 6803/2013. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT...
Jai NaraIn Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. No.1296/2012 Decided on:9. h January, 2014 % JAI NARAIN Through ..... Appellant Mr. S.B. Dandapani, Adv. versus STATE Through ..... Respondent Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP with S.I. Premvir Singh, PS Sultan Puri Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J (ORAL) 1. By the present appeal the Appellant challenges the judgment dated 12th April, 2012 convicting him for offences punishable under Sections 376/342/506 IPC and order on sentence dated 16th April, 2012 whereby he has been awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- for offence under Section 376 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year each and a fine of Rs. 1000/each for offences under Sections 506 and 342 IPC.2. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the only evidence against the Appellant is the oral testimony of the prosecutrix which does not inspire confidence. There are material contradictions in t...
Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs. Gurmeet Singh
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
S.C.Jain, Member: 1) This appeals has been filed by the appellant against the order dt. 06.01.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 173/2009. 2) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/complainant who is a Senior Citizen became unemployed on closure of super bazaar in 2002 and became a victim of deficiency in service on the part of appellant/OP i.e. HDFC Bank (erstwhile centurion bank of Punjab).? The respondent No.1/complainant was maintain a saving bank account No. 13091000020087 and was having three FDRs of 40,000/- each with erstwhile centurion bank of Punjab.? The FDRs matured in the month of February 2008 and proceeds were credited in respondent No. 1/complainant saving bank account.? The respondent No.1/complainant approach the bank for renewal of the FDR for another year.? On that day some lady staff member of the bank told him that a new scheme has been launched in which he has not to pay anything extra and i...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Ashok Kumar Goel
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President: 1. The facts of the case are that the OP Delhi Development Authority, in the year 1979, floated a scheme namely New Pattern Registration Scheme for allotment of MIG flats and issued a brochure containing terms and conditions of allotment. The complainant on the prescribed proforma issued by the OP, applied on 26.09.1979 for allotment of a flat by depositing Rs.4500/- as the registration fee for allotment of an MIG Flat, in his favour mentioning therein his address as 1891-A, Gali Leshwa, Kucha Pati Ram Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi -110006. Pursuant to the application given by the complainant, OP on 12.06.1980,? issued a registration certificate in his favour mentioning the same address. On 31.07.2002, there was draw and a flat on third floor bearing No.68, in sector -13, Pocket-A, Phase-II, Dwarka, New Delhi was allotted in favour of the complainant. The result of the draw was published in the leading newspapers, on notice board of the OP and also on the i...
M/S. Safeflex International Ltd. Vs. Cc, Ceandst, Indore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. After hearing both the sides, I find that the appellant applied for registration in terms of Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 under their application dated 27.08.2009 declaring the manufacture of LLDPE/LDPE Bag/ HDPE/ PP Fabric Sacks/ Tarpauline as the excisable goods to be manufactured by them. They also declared the various raw materials required for the manufacture of the above goods. Registration certificate was granted to them on 04.09.2009. The application was forwarded to the jurisdictional range Superintendent for further verification. As per report dated 21.09.2009 of the Superintendent., the appellant was not having any factory inasmuch as the premises were approximately 200 sq. Ft. and there was no machinery installed in the said premises. It was found that the appellant were receiving inputs at their premises and sending the same to the job worker for the manufacture of the finished goods. On receipt of the goods, the same were being cleared on...
Krishna Stone Crushers and Others Vs. Haryana State Pollution Control ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
Swatanter Kumar, (Chairperson): 1. By this common judgment, we shall dispose of the above nine appeals as they arise out of similar facts and raise common legal issues. All the appellants are carrying on the business of stone crushing under different names and styles in the State of Haryana. All of them challenge the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Haryana State Pollution Control Board (for short HSPCB) dated 15th March, 2012 which was upheld by the appellate authority vide its order dated 24th January, 2013. Besides referring to the specific facts in the cases, we would take up the Appeal No. 95 of 2013, (M/s. Jai Mata Di Stone Crushers vs. Haryana SPCB and Anr.) as the lead case for reference of the facts. M/s. Jai Mata Di Stone Crushers is a sole proprietorship concern, earlier working under the name and style of M/s Tej Singh Stone Crushers. The said appellant carries on the business of stone crushing, located in district Yamuna Nagar of the State of Haryana and...
- ‹ Prev
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- Next ›
- Last »