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

Try free for 7 days Semantic AI Search

Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.

Jan 08 2014

Trilok Vs. State (Nct) of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Jan-08-2014

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:08. 01.2014 + CRL. A. No.177 of 2010 TRILOK Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Sumeet Verma, Adv. versus STATE (NCT) OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGEMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(Oral) On 24.5.2004, on receipt of information with respect to a theft from House No.95B, Gali No.2, Sevasadan Block, Mandawali, Inspector Harish Chander, Additional SHO, Police Station Mandawali reached the aforesaid spot and recorded the statement of the complainant, Smt. Savitri Devi. She told the Investigating Officer that on that day she was present in the house along with her daughter-in-law, Ms. Pratibha. At about 1:30 p.m., she opened the door responding to the door bell. As soon as she opened the door two (2) persons entered the house and inquired about her husband. A third person also entered the house in the meanwhile and bolted the door from inside. One of them put a knife on her temple,...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 08 2014

Gurcharan Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Jan-08-2014

11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.507/2011 % 8th January, 2014 GURCHARAN SINGH & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. N.K. Gupta, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through Mr. P.S. Vimal, Advocate 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 Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,1987, the claimants/appellants pray for setting aside of the impugned judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 30.8.2011 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants seeking compensation was dismissed.2. The claim petition was dismissed as the Railway Claims Tribunal held that the claimants/appellants failed to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The relevant findings and observations of the Railway Claims Tribunal read as under :After perusal of record, I observe that in the documents i.e. AW1/6 to AW1/9, placed on record by the applicants, it is no ...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 08 2014

Sureshta Malhotra Vs. Urmila Rani Chadha and ors

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Jan-08-2014

$~03. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1760/2011 % Judgment dated 08.01.2014 SURESHTA MALHOTRA Through : ..... Plaintiff Mr.M.Tarique Siddiqui, Adv. versus URMILA RANI CHADHA & ORS ..... Defendants Through : Mr.Lalit Gupta, Mr.Payal Gupta and Mr.P. Gautham, Advs. for defendants no.1 and 2 along with defendants in person. Mr.Tushar Roy, Proxy Adv. for Mr.Sanjay Agarwal, Adv. for defendant no.3. Mr.S.S. Jauhar, Adv. for defendant no.5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) I.A. 15350/2013. By the present application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) (b) and (c) CPC defendant no.5 pays that the plaint be rejected. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendants seeking a declaration, inter alia, that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of second floor and terrace of the property bearing No.E-65, Greater Kailash Enclave, Part-I, New Delhi. A declaration is also sought declaring the Agree...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 08 2014

Rakesh @ Shanker Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Jan-08-2014

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:08. 01.2014 + Crl. Appeal No.663 of 2010 RAKESH @ SHANKER ....Appellant Through: Ms. Charu Verma, Adv. Versus STATE Through: ....Respondent Mr. Satish Verma, APP for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(Oral) The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on 21.9.2007, when the police officials were present at bus stand Punjabi Bagh, checking buses passing from there, the appellant before this Court got down from the bus. At that time he was carrying a box on his shoulders. An informer who was present on the spot, informed Inspector Ishwar Singh, one of the police officials referred above, that the appellant was going to supply ganja in the jhuggies and the box being carried by him contained ganja. On search of the trunk being carried by the appellant, 21 kg of ganja is alleged to have been recovered. This is also the case of the prosecution that before searching the trunk being carried by the ...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 08 2014

United India Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Meenakshi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Jan-08-2014

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:8. h January, 2014 % + MAC.APP. 819/2013 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Advocate. Versus MEENAKSHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. Peeush Sharma, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. AND MAC.APP. 538/2013 MEENAKSHI & ORS. Represented by: ..... Appellants Mr. Peeush Sharma, Advocate. Versus BANNE ALI & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Advocate for Respondent No.3/Insurance Company. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.1. Both the appeals have been preferred against the impugned award dated 07.01.2013, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation for a sum of Rs.43,31,064/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.2. Vide appeal bearing MAC. APP. No.819/2013, the Insurance Company has sought reduction of the compensation amount, whereas appeal bearing MAC. APP...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 08 2014

Balwinder Kumar Vs. Uoi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Jan-08-2014

$~25 to 28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Decision: January 08, 2014 W.P.(C) 3538/2001 GURDEV SINGH Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.H.S.Dahiya, Advocate versus U.O.I. & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Richa Kapoor, Advocate with Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate and Mr.A.K.Arora, Assistant Commandant, CISF W.P.(C) 3540/2001 BALWINDER KUMAR Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.H.S.Dahiya, Advocate versus U.O.I. & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Richa Kapoor, Advocate with Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate and Mr.A.K.Arora, Assistant Commandant, CISF W.P.(C) 3541/2001 ANGREJ SINGH Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.H.S.Dahiya, Advocate versus U.O.I. & ORS. Represented by: W.P.(C) No.3538/2001 & conn.matters ..... Respondents Ms.Richa Kapoor, Advocate with Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate and Mr.A.K.Arora, Assistant Commandant, CISF Page 1 of 9 W.P.(C) 3628/2001 BACHITTAR SINGH Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.H.S.Dahiya, Advocate versus U.O.I. & ORS. Represe...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 08 2014

Meenakshi and ors. Vs. Banne Ali and ors

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Jan-08-2014

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 08 2014

V S Yadav Vs. Reena

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Jan-08-2014

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:08. 01.2014 Crl. Appeal No.1136 of 2010 + V S YADAV ..... Appellant Through: Mr Puneet Mittal, Adv. versus REENA ..... Respondent Through: Mr Avninder Singh and Mr Aditya V. Singh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(Oral) The appellant before this Court filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short `N.I. Act) against the respondent on the allegations that she and her husband had taken a friendly loan of Rs.2,25,000/- from him and the respondent had issued three cheques for a total sum of Rs.2,25,000/- towards re-payment of the aforesaid friendly loan which, when presented to the bank were dishonoured for want of funds and the respondent failed to make payment even after service of legal notice upon her. Vide impugned judgment dated 27.1.2010, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the respondent. Being aggrieved, the complainant has filed this appeal.2. Vi...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 08 2014