Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 64 of about 723 results (0.026 seconds)Sanju Devi and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.477/2013 6th January , 2014 % SANJU DEVI AND ORS. Through: ......Appellants Mr. Ghanshyam, Advocate. VERSUS STATE AND ANR. Through: ...... Respondents Ms. Ritgaya Rai, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this first appeal under Section 348 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the appellants/petitioners impugn the order of the Court below dated 18.9.2013 which has dismissed the petition filed for a succession certificate on the ground that there is no admitted factum of the death of Sh. Brij Kishore and the petitioners are only relying upon presumption of civil death on account of Brij Kishore not available for the last seven years, and thus the aspect of civil death will have to be decided in a civil court in summary proceedings seeking a succession certificate.2. Trial Court has not decided the...
Tag this Judgment!SachIn Tandon Vs. State Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:6. h January, 2014 BAIL APPLN. 656/2013 AKHIL AGGARWAL Through: ..... Petitioner Ms. Rebecca John, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vivek Kohli, Mr. Lokesh Bhola and Ms. Mansha Anand, Advocates versus STATE NCT OF DELHI Through: + BAIL APPLN. 657/2013 SACHIN TANDON Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Fizani Hussain , APP for the State Mr. D.S. Kohli, Advocate for the complainant Insp. Ashu Girotra, EOW ..... Petitioner Ms. Rebecca John, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vivek Kohli, Mr. Lokesh Bhola and Ms. Mansha Anand, Advocates versus STATE NCT OF DELHI Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Fizani Hussain , APP for the State. Mr. D.S. Kohli, Advocate for the complainant Insp. Ashu Girotra, EOW CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose of two bail applications bearing No.656/2013 and 657/2013 moved by Sh. Akhil Aggaral and Mr. Sachin Tandon as both the applicants are arrayed as accused in c...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Ashok Kumar Ahuja and anr. Vs. Sh. Gulab Rai Khanchandani
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Pronounced on: January 06, 2014 + CM(M) No.1299/2013 & C.M. No.19310/2013 SH ASHOK KUMAR AHUJA & ANR ..... Petitioners Through Mr.Manoranjan, Adv. versus SH GULAB RAI KHANCHANDANI ..... Respondent Through Mr.Tarun Chandiok, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners/tenants against the order dated 7th November, 2013 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, passed in appeal being RCT No.13/12.2. The facts of the matter are that the respondent/landlord filed the eviction petition on the ground of second default in the payment of rent against the petitioners under Section 14(1)(a) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short, called the DRC Act) which was allowed by the learned Rent Controller by order dated 27th March, 2010 passed in the eviction petition bear...
Tag this Judgment!Shakuntala Devi and ors. Vs. Suresh Jain
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % RSA No.2/2014 6th January, 2014 SHAKUNTALA DEVI & ORS. Through: ...... Appellants Mr. Sunny Arora and Ms. Shweta Goel, Advocates. VERSUS SURESH JAIN ...... Respondent Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM No.130/2014 (delay in refiling) Delay in refiling is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA22014 1. The challenge by means of this regular second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC is to the impugned judgment of the appellate court dated 23.9.2013 which set asides the order dated 11.5.2012 of the trial court dismissing the suit as not maintainable in the civil court on the ground that the rate of rent was Rs. 20 per month and therefore only Delhi Rent Control Act had jurisdiction.2. In Delhi where the premises are governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, a tenant is defined under the Act in Section 2(l). As per the various judicial pronouncements, whereas a resi...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs. Desh Raj (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA32014& CM No.182/2014(Stay) 6th January, 2014 % VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA Through: ......Appellant Mr. Abdul Sattar, Adv. VERSUS DESH RAJ (DECEASED) & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents 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 filed under Section 100 CPC impugns the concurrent findings of facts and law by the courts below. The judgment of the trial court dated 31.8.2012 dismissed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff and appellate court by its judgment dated 10.9.2013 dismissed the appeal. In this case, the plaintiff-appellant claims rights in the suit premises admeasuring 35 sq. yds bearing No.1880 Udai Chand Marg, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. Plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction claiming that defendants were threatening to dispossess him and he was entitled to relief of injunction.2. The trial court by its judgment dated 31.8.2012 has found...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Power Company Ltd. Vs. G.C.Garg and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA1782006 & CM79092006 & 5897/2012 6th January, 2014 % DELHI POWER COMPANY LTD. ......Appellant Through: Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna and Mr. Vinay Kasana, Ms. Aditi Mohan and Ms. Sana Sundaram, Advocates. VERSUS G.C.GARG & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Ms. Shweta Bari, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Anupam Verma , Mr. Nikhil Sharma and Mr. Jibran, Advocates for R-2. Mr. S.K.Chaturvedi, Adv. for Pension Trust. 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 under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant (respondent in the appellate court below) impugning the judgment of the appellate court dated 14.2.2006. The judgment of the trial court is dated 22.1.2005 by which the trial court in the suit of the respondent no.1 herein (the plaintiff in trial court) was decreed by holding that the date of retireme...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Nath Ex-d Men-11 Vs. Union of India and anr
Court: Delhi
$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 47/2014 Date of decision:6. h January, 2013 % PREM NATH EX-D MEN-11 Through: ..... Petitioner Mr.Prakash Chandra, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.B.V.Niren, CGSC with Mr.M.P. Singh for R-1 and R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J.(oral) 1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 17th April, 2013 whereby his O.A.No.847/2012 was rejected. The petitioner also challenges the order passed on 4 th September, 2013 rejecting his review petitioner being R.A.No.110/2013.2. It appears that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated agaist the petitioner on the following charges:Article I That the said Shri Prem Nath, while serving as DMan-II in the Dte of Fleet Maintenance, did remain unauthorisedly absent for 233 days in various spells between 13 Sep 206 to 01 Jun 2007. Shri Prem Nath, DMan-II, by his above...
Tag this Judgment!Umesh Dutt Sharma Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 40/2014 & C.M.No.66/2014 Date of decision:6. h January, 2014 % UMESH DUTT SHARMA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr.R.D.Chauhan and Mr.Arun K.Chauhan and Mr.M.S.Negi, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr.R.N.Singh and Mr.A.S.Singh, Advocates for R-1 and R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J.(oral) 1. The petitioner in the instant case has assailed the order dated 24th November, 2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the O.A.No.2995/2010 as well as the order dated 27th February, 2012 whereby the Review Application No.59/2012 was rejected.2. The petitioner has assailed his non-selection for the post of JE-II (25% LDCE Quota) notified by the respondent on 7th January, 2010. The petitioner had undertaken the written examination on 15 th June, 2010. He was not found meritorious in the result declared on 13th July, 2010. The responde...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Salim Beg Vs. Secretary Ministry of Communication and Informatio ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
G. George Paracken, M(J): Applicant is presently working as Director, Telecom Engineering Centre. He has challenged the impugned charge memo dated 20.08.2007, disagreement note of the Disciplinary Authority dated 16.06.2011 and the final order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 30.08.2012 imposing upon him the penalty of reduction to lower stage in the time scale of pay by two stages for a period of one year with further direction that he will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period, the reduction will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of pay. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant was served with the Charge Memo No.8-136/2006-Vig.II dated 20.08.2007 proposing to hold an enquiry against him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The statement of Articles of Charge framed against him are as under:- Article-I That Shri Salim Beg while posted and functioning as DE (OCB-Indoor), BSNL, Moradabad durin...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Parkash, New Delh Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Chief Secretar ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J). 1. The applicant who is a retired Post Graduate Teacher (Physics), having aggrieved by the action of the respondents in rejecting his application made in pursuance of a Notification for reemployment till the age of 62 years, filed the OA No.509/2013. The same was dismissed by an order dated 28.10.2013, on merits. 2. The present RA is filed under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, seeking to review the Order dated 28.10.2013 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.509/2013. 3. The scope and power of this Tribunal under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is limited and akin to the power of a Civil Court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.4. The Honble Apex Court in Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and Others - (1999) 9 SCC 596 held that power of review available to the Tribunal under Section 22(3)(f) is not absolute and is the same as given to a Cour...
Tag this Judgment!