Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 59 of about 723 results (0.021 seconds)Krishan Dutt Kaushik Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Court: Delhi
$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:08. 01.2014 + W.P.(C) 104/2014 KRISHAN DUTT KAUSHIK ..... Petitioner versus LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the petitioner: Mr Sanjay Kumar, Adv. For the respondent: Mr Kamal Mehta, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J CM No.186/2014 (Exemption) 1. Allowed subject to just exceptions. WP(C) 104/2014 2. By this petition challenge is laid to the order of the disciplinary committee of the respondent-corporation dated 30.10.1998 based on an inquiry report dated 14.08.1997. In addition, directions are sought for setting aside the memorial order of the Chairman of the respondentcorporation dated 28.06.2000. A consequential prayer is sought qua the respondent- corporation for withdrawal the punishment imposed by the aforementioned order dated 28.06.2000, which was to the effect that the petitioners increment of two stages be reduced. 2....
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co Ltd. Vs. Roshi and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:8. h January, 2014 % + MAC.APP. 84/2012 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.K.L. Nandwani, Advocate. Versus ROSHI & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Nishant Kumar Srivastava, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Nalin L. Sahay, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) CM No.1338/2012 (for additional evidence) Since the recovery rights have already been granted in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company, therefore, the present application has become infructuous. The same is accordingly dismissed. CM No.1337/2012 (for delay) In view of the averments made in the application, the delay of 35 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. MAC.APP. 84/2012 1. Vide the present appeal, the appellant/Insurance Company has assailed the impugned award dated 21.09.2011, whereby the learned Tribun...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Kumar @ Doctor and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :25. h November, 2013 DECIDED ON :08. h January, 2014 + CRL.A. 791/2002 SANJAY KUMAR @ DOCTOR & ANR. .... Appellants Through : Mr.Neeraj Yadav, Proxy Counsel for Mr.Anurag Jain, Advocate. VERSUS STATE Through : .... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. AND + CRL.A. 71/2003 NARPENDER @ PAPPU Through : .... Appellant Mr.Neeraj Yadav, Proxy Counsel for Mr.Anurag Jain, Advocate. VERSUS STATE Through : .... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Sanjay Kumar @ Doctor (A-1), Zakir Hussain (A-2), Shahzad @ Shamshad (A-3) and Narpender @ Pappu (A-4) were arrested in case FIR No.297/2000 registered at Police Station, Vasant Kunj and sent for trial on the allegations that on 08.05.2000 at about 09.30 A.M., they all in pursuant to criminal conspiracy robbed complainant-Krishan Chand and deprived him of cash `40,000/- at the point of deadly weapons. The police machinery was set into motion when Daily Diary...
Tag this Judgment!Lalita Devi and ors Vs. Karambir and anr
Court: Delhi
$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:8. h January, 2014 % + MAC.APP. 1180/2012 LALITA DEVI AND ORS ..... Appellants Represented by: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Adv. Versus KARAMBIR AND ANR ..... Respondents Represented by: NEMO. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Pursuant to order dated 09.11.2012, Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, Adv. appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 / insurance company on 24.01.2013. Thereafter, none preferred to appear on behalf of the said respondent. The said situation continued on last two consecutive dates. Same is the position today. Hence, this court has no option but to proceed with the matter.2. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 03.07.2012, whereby, ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for a sum of Rs.7,18,159/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.3. The present appeal is for enhancement of the compensation amount as noted above.4. Ld. Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Mahak Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:8. h January, 2014 % + MAC.APP.702/2011 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Tarkeshwar Nath, Advocate. Versus MAHAK SINGH & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.PremChandra, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 23.04.2011 and order dated 19.05.2011, whereby the learned Tribunal while awarding compensation towards loss of dependency, has applied the multiplier of 13.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company submits that keeping in view the dictum of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC and Ors. 2009 (6) SCC121and the age of the deceased being more than 50 years, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 11 instead of 13.3. After impugned award dated 23.04.2011 having been passed, the appellant/Insurance Company moved an applica...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hari Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~R16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:8. h January, 2014 MAC.APP. 850/2006 M/S. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. D.K. Sharma and Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advs. versus HARI SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: NEMO. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 17.05.2006, whereby ld. Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.4,26,800/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that it was not mentioned in the claim petition that the vehicle by which the injured was travelling was hit by the offending vehicle No.RJ-02-C-2855 for the reason that the accident in question was in fact of a hit and run case and no accident was occurred with the offending vehicle as noted above.3. Ld. Counsel submits that the claimant had filed a petition und...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Ghai Vs. District and Sessions Judge
Court: Delhi
$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 98/2014 Date of decision:8. h January, 2014 % M.R. GHAI Through : ..... Petitioner Mr. Daviender M. Grover and Mr. Suresh Kant, Advs. versus DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE ..... Respondent Through : Ms. Avnish Ahlawat and Ms. Latika Chaudhary, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings pursuant to an order dated 23rd August, 2002 under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 along with one Smt. Kanta Devi. The Inquiring authority found both of them guilty. Upon consideration of the Inquiry Report dated 22nd March, 2006, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 7th August, 2006 affirming the findings. By the same order the Disciplinary Authority imposed the major penalty of dismissal from service against the petitioner while Smt. Kanta Devi was awarded the penalty of...
Tag this Judgment!Ravi Somani Vs. Union of India and anr
Court: Delhi
26 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2667/2013 & CM APPL. 5044/2013 RAVI SOMANI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Banati, Advocate with Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Prasook Jain, Advocate for Mr. B.V. Niren, Advocate for UOI. Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate with Mr. Kunal Dutta and Ms. Medha Shah, Advocates for respondent No.2. Date of Decision :8. h January, 2014 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the notification for re- minting of commemorative coins having same denomination, design, dimensions and metal compositions as originally released commemorative coins had. The prayer in the writ petition is reproduced hereinbelow:(a) Declare that the issuance of the same coin with same specification and date is unjust, unfair, malafide and unconstitutional. (b) To issue Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of mandamus and/or certior...
Tag this Judgment!Bimla Devi and anr. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % FAO No.421/2012 8th January, 2014 BIMLA DEVI & ANR. Through: ......Appellants Mr. Raj Kumar Rajput, Advocate. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Amit Dubey, Mr. Ravi Tyagi and Mr. Satyam Pandey, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This first appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment dated 12.4.2012 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissing the claim petition of the appellants.2. The facts of the case as pleaded by the appellants are that the deceased husband of the appellant no.1 late Sh. Gita Ram died on 17.1.2011 on account of an untoward incident as per Sections 123(c) and 124(A) of the Railways Act, 1989, and thus compensation ought to be awarded to the appellants who are the widow and children of late Sh. Gita Ram.3. There is no dispute in the present case that the appel...
Tag this Judgment!Abhishek Vohra Vs. Sureshta Malhotra and ors
Court: Delhi
$~04. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 3012/2011 % Judgment dated 08.01.2014 ABHISHEK VOHRA Through : ..... Plaintiff Mr.Tushar Roy, Proxy Adv. for Mr.Sanjay Agarwal, Adv. versus SURESHTA MALHOTRA & ORS ..... Defendants Through : Mr.M.Tarique Siddiqui, Adv. for defendant no.1. Mr.Lalit Gupta, Mr.Payal Gupta and Mr.P. Gautham, Advs. for defendants no.2 and 3 along with defendants in person. Mr.S.S. Jauhar, Adv. for defendant no.4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) I.A. 15387/2013. 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 Agreement...
Tag this Judgment!