Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 67 of about 723 results (0.013 seconds)R V Ahirwal Vs. K.K.Sachan and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: December 10, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: January 03, 2014 + CRL.M.C. No.1506/2008 R V AHIRWAL Through: .....Petitioner Mr. Apurb Lal, Advocate versus K.K.SACHAN & ANR. Through: ....Respondents Mr. V.P. Katiyar, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. P.K.Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR % 1. JUDGMENT Quashing of CC No.182/2001 for the offence of defamation and summoning order of 9th May, 2003 (Annexure P-1) is sought in this petition on merits.2. At the hearing it was urged by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was a doctor working under Municipal Corporation of Delhi (henceforth referred to as MCD) and was Incharge of the MCD Maternity Hospital at Hudson Lane, Kingsway Camp, Delhi where respondent was working as a Pharmacist, who used to bring a school bag to hospital and petitioner had entertained suspicion that respondentcomplainant was stealing me...
Tag this Judgment!Krishan Dutt Sharma Vs. Saket District Court Lawyers Chambers Allotmen ...
Court: Delhi
#14 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5231/2012 & CM APPL. 10674/2012 KRISHAN DUTT SHARMA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. G.S. Chaturvedi, Advocate versus SAKET DISTRICT COURT LAWYERS CHAMBERS ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE AND ORS ..... Respondents Through Ms. Avnish Ahalawat, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Amit Khemka with Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Advocates for R-3. Date of Decision :3. d January, 2014 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging non-allotment of a lawyers chamber to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not primarily practicing at the Patiala House Courts Complex.2. Mr. G.S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been denied allotment of a chamber on account of a restrictive and incorrect view of the expression practicing. He submits that even advocates who are not appearing in the courts are practicing...
Tag this Judgment!Baldev Raj Arora Vs. Mohinder Lal Sahgal
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: January 03, 2014 + RC. Rev. No.251/2013 & C.M. No.10873/2013 BALDEV RAJ ARORA Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Anil Sapra, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Hirein. Sharma and Ms.Meena Chaudhary, Advs. versus MOHINDER LAL SAHGAL ..... Respondent Through Mr.Shiv Charan Garg, Adv. with Mr.Vinay Sharma, Mr.Shashank Mittal and Mr.Imran Khan, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 21st January 2013 passed by learned ARC (North-West), Rohini, Delhi, dismissing the leave to defend application of the petitioner in an eviction petition filed by the respondent in respect of one shop on the ground floor of the property bearing No.WZ-916, Rani Bagh, Delhi- 110034 (hereinafter referred to as the tenanted premises) 2. The respondent averred that he bonafidely re...
Tag this Judgment!Kamlesh Kumari and anr. Vs. Rohtas Goyal and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment pronounced on: January 03, 2014 CM(M) N0.1127/2013 & C.M. No.16606/2013 KAMLESH KUMARI & ANR ..... Petitioners Through Mr.Ankit Jain, Adv. versus ROHTAS GOYAL & ORS Through ..... Respondents Mr.Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Adv. with Mr.Vikas Mishra, Adv. for R-1. Mr.Prateek Kumar, Adv. with Mr.Suryajyoti Singh Paul, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. By way of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed order dated 19th August, 2013 passed by the learned ARC/ACJ/CCJ, North East, Karkardooma Court, Delhi in Suit No.154/2012.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners herein filed a suit bearing No.154/2012, titled as Smt.Kamlesh Kumari and another vs. Sh.Rohtas Goyal, inter alia, seeking mandatory injunction to hand over the contents of locker bearing No.614 of ING Vysya Bank to them.3. The respondent No.1 had filed its written statement ...
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Kumar Vs. NitIn Garg and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order Pronounced on: January 03, 2014 + CM(M) No.1331/2012 & C.M. No.20431/2012 RAKESH KUMAR Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Tanmaya Mehta, Adv. versus NITIN GARG & ANR Through ..... Respondents Mr.O.P.Verma, Adv. for R-1. Respondent No.2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. By way of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed order dated 3rd November 2012 passed by the learned Appellate Court in an appeal filed by the petitioner against the respondents.2. Brief facts for the purpose of adjudication of the present appeal are that respondent No.1 had filed an eviction petition against respondent No.2 under Section 14 (1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The matter was at the stage of petitioners evidence when the petitioner herein filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC ...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Kumar and anr Vs. Dileshwari Devi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.4/2014& CM552014(Stay) 3rd January, 2014 % SURESH KUMAR & ANR Through: ..... Appellants Mr. P.K.Srivastava, Adv. versus DILESHWARI DEVI ..... Respondent Through CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This appeal under Order XLIII CPC impugns the order of the trial court dated 4.10.2013 dismissing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC filed by the appellants/defendants. Since the impugned order is a short order, I reproduce the same as under:04.10.2013 Case file taken up today on an application U/o 9 Rule 13 CPC, filed on behalf of defendants for setting aside the judgment/decree dated 30.04.2013 Present: FAO42014 Shri Shailender Yadav, Ld. Proxy Counsel for the applicants/defendants. Page 1 of 3 Plaintiff in person. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the entire record. The applicants/defendants were duly served in the matter. The p...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Pragun Buildtech (P) Ltd Vs. Sarla Aggarwal and ors
Court: Delhi
$~ 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 2243/2010 M/S PRAGUN BUILDTECH (P) LTD ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Vibha Mahajan Seth, Adv. versus SARLA AGGARWAL & ORS ..... Defendant Through: Mr.S.N. Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Mr.K.B. Soni, Advocate for defendant no.1 Defendant no.2 and 3 are present in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI % G.S.SISTANI, J1 ORDER0301.2014 Mr.Ankur Goel, Advocate seeks discharge from appearing on behalf of defendant no.1 to 3, as the defendant no.1 to 3 have engaged another counsel. Accordingly, Mr.Ankur Goel, Advocate is discharged from the case. IA.No.21367/2012 & CS(OS) 2243/2010 2. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for partition and possession. During the pendency of the suit an application was filed by the plaintiff being I.A.No.10564/2011 under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. The aforesaid application was decided by a detailed order on 30.3.2012. A preliminary decree was passed in favour of the plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Rajkumari Khanchandani Vs. the Management of Ses, Baba Nebhraj Sr Sec ...
Court: Delhi
$~6 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LPA9832013 and CM APPL.Nos.20695-96/2013 Date of Decision :3. d January, 2014 % RAJKUMARI KHANCHANDANI ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Akhil Sachar, Advocate versus THE MANAGEMENT OF SES, BABA NEBHRAJ SR SEC SCHOOL AND ANR ..... Respondents Through : None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA CM No.20695/2013 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. The application is disposed of. CM No.20696/2013 The delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned. This application stands disposed of. LPA9832013 We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 26th August, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition of respondent no.1-School and reversing the order of the Delhi School Tribunal dated 11th August, 2011 whereby termination of services of the appellant by the management of respondent no.1School, where she was employed as an Assistant Teacher, wa...
Tag this Judgment!Amardeep Singh Chandhok and Another Vs. Kulbir Singh Chandhok and Othe ...
Court: Delhi
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.S. (OS) No.2672 of 2013 Decided on :3. d January, 2014 AMARDEEP SINGH CHANDHOK & ANR. Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Mr. Amit Kumar & Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocates. Versus KULBIR SINGH CHANDHOK & ORS. Defendants Through: Mr. Bhagat Singh, Advocate for D-1 & 9. Counsel for D-2 to 8; (appearance not given). CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) I.A. No.21254/2013 1. This is an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC.2. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for partition, declaration, rendition of accounts and permanent injunction. The case setup by the plaintiffs in the plaint was that the plaintiffs are the grand sons of Late Sh. Man Singh Chandhok and that the defendant No.1, Kulbir Singh Chandhok, their father, is trying to divest them of their legitimate share in the three properties, details of which are given in Schedule A attached to the plaint being the ancestral propertie...
Tag this Judgment!Sugeeta Chhabra Vs. Harish Nayar
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI IA50132012 in CS(OS) 1342/2011 Reserved on:22. d October, 2013 Decided on:3. d January, 2014 % SUGEETA CHHABRA Through ..... Plaintiff Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Dua, Adv. versus HARISH NAYAR Through ..... Defendant Mr. R.P. Sharma, Adv. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA IA50132012 (O.XII R.6 CPC by plaintiff) 1. By this application the plaintiff seeks judgment on admission. Learned counsel for the plaintiff in support of the application contends that the defence set up by the defendant not being plausible, a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is required to be passed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has sought the relief of partition of the property bearing No.41 Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) by meets and bounds and further a decree of partition being the owner of 50% share in the movable assets owned by late Shri Ram Gopal Nayar, rendition of accounts and permane...
Tag this Judgment!