Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Chameleon Resources Ltd. Vs. Tata Tea Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:3. d January, 2014 % + RFA No.568/2013 CHAMELEON RESOURCES LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar & Mr. S. Shekhar, Advs. Versus TATA TEA LTD. ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J1 The appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2010 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ), Central-14, Delhi of dismissal (for the reason of the appellant / plaintiff having failed to lead any evidence in support of its claim) of suit No.1009/2008 filed by the appellant / plaintiff for recovery of damages of US$31883.00 equivalent to Indian Rs.12,11,535/- with interest.2. The appeal, though accompanied with applications for condonation of 1182 days delay in filing and 60 days delay in re-filing the appeal, when filed was without the requisite court fees. Eight weeks time was sought to make up the deficiency in court fees. The appeal came up first before this Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Rajender Singh Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
$~23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:3. d January, 2014 % + CM(M) 3/2014 RAJENDER SINGH Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Rajnish K. Jha, Advocate. Versus STATE BANK OF INDIA Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Rajiv Kapur, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is seeking direction against respondent State Bank of India to release the complete amount lying deposited with it in the form of FDR A/c No.32944104851 with upto date interest in his favour.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.10.2011 at about 04.10 pm when the injured/petitioner was crossing the road on foot at BRT Bus Lane, the offending vehicle, i.e., DTC Bus bearing registration No.DL-1PC-9453 (Route No.544) being driven by its driver at a very high speed, rashly, negligently and neglecting the Traffic Rules coming from Pushp Bhawan side to Khanpur hit him. Due to forceful impact of the offending vehicle...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Mishra Vs. Madhu and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:3. d January, 2014 % + RFA No.135/2013 SHYAM MISHRA Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Suresh Sharma, Adv. Versus MADHU & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. S.C. Singhal, Adv. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J1 The appeal impugns the judgment and decree (dated 4th February, 2013 of the Court of the Addl. District Judge-IV, South District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in Suit No.470/2012 (UID No.02405C0412702009) filed by the respondent no.1 against the appellant and the respondents no.2 to 4 herein) of declaration, declaring the documents in respect of suit property being plot No.12-B ad measuring 125 sq.yds. (38x29.6) out of Khasra No.6/1 situated in Village Nangli Sakaravati Delhi abadi, now known as Prem Vihar, Najafgarh, New Delhi in favour of the respondent No.1 / plaintiff as valid and the documents with respect to the same property in favour of the appellant / defendant as bogus and directing cance...
Tag this Judgment!Mahender Tiwari Vs. Ishwari Prasad Nigam
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order Pronounced on: January 03, 2014 + RC. Rev. No.85/2011 MAHENDER TIWARI Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Vivek Sharma, Adv. versus ISHWARI PRASAD NIGAM ..... Respondent Through Mr.M.R.Shamshad, Adv. with Mr.Shashank Singh, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The petitioner by way of the present petition under Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) assails the eviction order dated 14th February 2011 passed by the court of Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein filed an eviction petition against the petitioner alleging bonafide requirement for the purpose of residence for himself and his family members in respect of the tenanted shop i.e. Shop No.1, measuring 26 x 56, in the property No.B-254, Gali No.11, Bhajanpura, Delhi-53 (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). It was stated in th...
Tag this Judgment!Dalbir Singh Vs. Nirmal Singh (Deceased) Through Lrs
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:3. d January, 2014. + RFA941991 DALBIR SINGH Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Raman Kapur, Sr. Adv. with Mr. V.B. Arya & Mr. Amit Kochar, Advs. Versus NIRMAL SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS ..Respondent Through: Mr. Abhinav Vashisht, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rajat Arora & Mr. Ajay Khanna, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. The appeal impugns the judgment and decree (dated 15th December, 1990 of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No.326/1981 filed by the deceased respondent/plaintiff against the appellant/defendant) of specific performance of the Agreement dated 28 th July, 1962 of sale by the appellant/defendant of land admeasuring 41 bighas and 16 biswas situated at Village Chattarpur, Delhi to the deceased respondent/plaintiff.2. Notice of the appeal was issued and vide ex-parte ad-interim order dated 21st February, 1991, the execution of the Sale Deed in pursuance to the dec...
Tag this Judgment!Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Jasbir Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
$~31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:3. d January, 2014 % + MAC.APP. 8/2014 SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Sameer Nandwani, Advocate. Versus JASBIR SINGH & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) CM No.40/2014 (for exemption) Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. MAC.APP. 8/2014 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company assailing the impugned award dated 17.10.2013, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.22,783/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR, i.e., 27.09.2011 till realization in favour of the respondent No.1/claimant.2. Since the similar issues have been raised by the appellant/Insurance Company in another connected appeal bearing MAC. APP. No.1/2014, wherein notice has been issued, therefore, this...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi NaraIn Vs. Krishan Kumar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: December 03, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: January 03, 2014 + CRL.M.C. No.3422/2012 LAXMI NARAIN Through: .....Petitioner Mr. C.L. Gupta, Advocate versus KRISHAN KUMAR & ANR. Through: .....Respondents Mr. Aman Mehta, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2-State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR % 1. JUDGMENT Petitioner is Assistant Commissioner of Police in Delhi, who has been summoned as an accused in Complaint No.92/1/2003, under Section 218/201 I.P.C., registered at police station Prasad Nagar, Delhi vide order of 22nd April, 2004 and petitioner appearing before trial court, Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 201 of I.P.C. has been framed against him on 8th May, 2012. Quashing of aforesaid complaint, summoning order and Notice framed is sought in this petition on merits.2. At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had submitted...
Tag this Judgment!Daya Ram Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
$~R-5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: January 03, 2014 + W.P.(C)7205/2000 DAYA RAM ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.M.M.Singh and Mr.Sunil Singh, Advocates versus UOI AND ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Barkha Babbar, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. At the outset, we record that learned counsel for the petitioner gives up challenge to the penalty levied with reference to the plea urged in the writ petition that the petitioner could not have been tried for a second time pertaining to the two charge sheets dated February 13,1999.3. Reason appears to be that proceedings pertaining to the first joint trial were set aside by the competent authority when record was put up for confirmation finding deficiency in the trial warranting de novo trial on the same two charge sheets.4. The petitioner was tried at a Summary Security Forc...
Tag this Judgment!Mahender Singh Vs. Jagjit Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
$~R5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:3. d January, 2014 % + MAC.APP. 447/2006 MAHENDER SINGH ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. Vishwendra Verma, Mr. Pranav Verma and Ms.Shivali Singh, Advs. Versus JAGJIT SINGH AND ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: NEMO. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the award dated 16.01.2006 whereby ld. Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the award amount except for the period from 26.02.2002 till 17.12.2002 and from 14.10.2003 till 15.11.2003.2. Ordersheet reveals that none has been appearing on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, this court has no option but to proceed with the matter.3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that Dr. B.K. Patta of Kailash Hospital has proved that the medical expenses incurred on the app...
Tag this Judgment!Neo Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Neo Milk Products Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: December 20, 2013 Decision on: January 3, 2014 CS (OS) No.2064 of 2013 NEO FOODS PVT. LTD. Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rahul S. Sahay and Mr. Ankur Sangal, Advocates. versus NEO MILK PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohit Choudhary, Ms. Priti and Ms. Aarthy Venkat, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT0301.2014 IA Nos. 17169 of 2013 (Order XXXIX Rules 1 and2) & 17849 of 2013 (Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC) 1. The question that arises for determination in these applications is whether the interim injunction granted by the Court in favour of the Plaintiff by its order dated 28th October 2013 should continue during the pendency of the suit, or as contended by the Defendant be vacated.2. The Plaintiff Neo Foods Private Limited is the registered proprietor of the trademark (device) and word mark Neo under Class 29 for pickles, gherkins, pickl...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- Next ›
- Last »