Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 68 of about 723 results (0.015 seconds)Surender Kumar Arora and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. No.841 of 2013 & Crl.M.A. No.13239/2013 Date of decision:3. d January, 2014 SURENDER KUMAR ARORA & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr.Yashish Chandra & Mr.J.S. Malik, Advs. versus STATE & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Mukesh Gupta, APP for the State. ASI Dharamvir Singh, PS CWC Nanakpura. Mr.Jayant K. Sud & Mr.Chirag Khurana, Advs. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH VED PRAKASH VAISH, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C. for short) for quashing of FIR No.90/2012 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Nanakpura, Delhi by father-inlaw and mother-in-law of respondent No.2/complainant.2. The case of the petitioners is that the complainant got married with the son of the petitioners, Ankit Arora in Delhi in the year 2011. The son of the petitioners is a British National and a permanent resident of London. After marriage in Delhi, the complainant and her hus...
Tag this Judgment!Sat NaraIn Gupta and anr. Vs. Shri Bansi Lal and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA Nos.285/2013 & 286/2013 3rd January , 2014 % 1. RSA No285/2013 SAT NARAIN GUPTA AND ANR. ......Appellants Through: Mr. Amarjit Singh, Advocate. VERSUS SHRI BANSI LAL AND ANR. Through:2. ...... Respondents RSA No286/2013 SAT NARAIN GUPTA AND ANR. ......Appellants Through: Mr. Amarjit Singh, Advocate. VERSUS SHRI BANSI LAL AND ANR. Through: ...... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) RSA No.285/2013 1. This Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the concurrent findings of facts and law by the Courts below dismissing the suit for possession, mesne profits etc filed by the appellants herein (the plaintiffs in the trial Court). Trial Court dismissed the suit for possession etc by the judgment dated 13.8.2012. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellants/plaintiffs by its judgmen...
Tag this Judgment!Veena Behl and anr Vs. M/S Vasari India Pvt Ltd
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + OA922013 & IA Nos. 132/2013, 18787/2012, 218/2013, 1581/2013 in CS(OS) 3081/2012 % Reserved on:29. h October, 2013 Decided on:3. d January, 2014 VEENA BEHL & ANR ..... Plaintiff Through Mr. Atul Nigam, Mr. Amit Tiwari, Advs. versus M/S VASARI INDIA PVT LTD ..... Defendant Through Mr. R.L. Kohli, Adv. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 Before adverting to the appeal and the applications it would be appropriate to narrate the relevant facts. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession, recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profit, damages and injunction against the defendant which is a private limited company. The plaintiffs who are the owners/ lessors of the commercial property i.e. shop on the ground floor bearing private shop No.2, 6/ 30-31 Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, (hereinafter the suit property) entered into a lease agreement with the defendant company which lease expired by afflux of time and thus a fresh regis...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sheila Devi and anr. Vs. Smt. Santosh Devi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.104/2011 % January 03 , 2014 SMT. SHEILA DEVI & ANR. Through: ......Appellants Mr. Narender Sharma, Adv. VERSUS SMT. SANTOSH DEVI Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Raj Kumar Sherawat, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CMNo.3921/2013 (U/o 41 Rule 25 & 27 CPC by the appellants) By this application under Order 41 Rules 25 & 27 CPC the appellant/applicant in this regular second appeal seeks to file transcript of a recorded conversation which took place between the parties when the notices of this second appeal were sought to be got served. In a second appeal, such type of application which is filed, is quite clearly an abuse of the process of law not only because the appeal has to be ordinarily decided as per records of the courts below but also because surreptitiously recording of conversation cannot have any meaning because statements are made many a times o...
Tag this Judgment!Bhawani Shanker Vs. Sh. Bakshish Singh
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA2872013 & CM No.20720/2013 (Stay) 3rd January, 2014 ..... Appellant % BHAWANI SHANKER Through: Mr. G.V.Rao and Mr. A.K.Upadhyay, Advocates. versus SH. BAKSHISH SINGH ..... Respondent Through: None. 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 CPC has been filed against the judgment of the appellate court dated 16.11.2013. By the impugned judgment the appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial court dated 31.3.2011. The trial court by its judgment dated 31.3.2011 dismissed the suit for possession by holding that the suit property was covered under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and therefore, civil court had no jurisdiction. Appellate court relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mitter Sen Jain Vs. Shakuntala Devi (2000) 9 SCC720(and which judgment was with respect to the sam...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Mecano Exportimport S.A.
Court: Delhi
$~R1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + OMP No.381/2003 UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. R.V.Sinha, Mr. R.N.Singh & Mr. A.S.Singh, Advocates versus MECANO EXPORTIMPORT S.A. Through: ..... Respondent M/s S.N.Tripathy, Sunil Kumar Tiwary & Hari Ram Tiwary, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI ORDER0301.2014 % This petition has been preferred by the Union of India under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to assail the arbitral Award dated 27.06.2003 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, whereby certain claims of the respondent have been allowed and the counter claims of the petitioner have been disallowed.2. The petitioner floated a global tender for purchaser of wheel sets of a particular specification. The respondent/claimant gave its bid and by letter dated 14.08.1996, the petitioner intimated its acceptance of the offer to purchase 10,000 wheel sets. A contract was executed between the parties on 29.08.1996 (C/4) specifying detailed ...
Tag this Judgment!A.N. Rastogi Vs. Central Bank of India and ors
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:03. 01.2014 + W.P.(C) 8339/2005 A.N. RASTOGI ..... Petitioner versus CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the petitioner: Mr D.K. Rustagi & Mr Gaurav Arora, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr R.S. Mathur, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.1. This is a petition filed against the order dated 21.7.2003 passed by the disciplinary authority and order dated 14.1.2004 passed by the appellate authority, in an appeal preferred by the petitioner.2. It may be pertinent to note that an amended writ petition was filed, in which, an additional prayer was sought qua the respondents herein, which was to the effect that the retiral benefits ought to be paid to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. The amounts which, according to the petitioner, have been withheld, are tabulated in paragraph (GA) of the amended writ pet...
Tag this Judgment!Wool Worth (i) Ltd. Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:03. 01.2014 + W.P.(C)874/1998 WOOL WORTH (I) LTD. Through: .... Petitioner None. versus UOI & OTHERS ..... Respondents Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. In this proceeding an order of the erstwhile Central, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) dated 11th December 1997, in appeal, preferred by petitioner, has been challenged.2. The petitioner at the relevant time was engaged in the manufacturing of Wool Worsted Yarn. It was declared as 100% Export Oriented Unit and entitled to beneficial treatment in terms of revenue and export-import laws. Claiming that on account of its expansion which was sought to have been undertaken sometime after 1993, the petitioner contended that cement and other such inputs purchased for the construction activities undertaken by it to house its unit, were entitled to the ben...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Ralson India Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:03. 01.2014 + W.P.(C) 142/1998 M/S. RALSON INDIA LTD. Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Anoop Sharma and Mr.Manu Kr. Giri, Advocates. versus DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rohit Madan, Adv. and Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Adv. for CIT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR S. RAVINDRA BHAT J.(OPEN COURT) 1. The petitioner seeks a direction for quashing of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued by Revenue on 26.04.1995 in respect of the Assessment Year 1991-92.2. It is urged that in respect of the above Assessment year, the petitioner/assessee had filed its return on 31.12.1991. During the pendency of the assessment proceedings, the assessees premises were subjected to search on 13.10.1992. In the light of the materials found by the Income Tax Authorities, a questionnaire was addressed to the assessee on 21.05.1993. WP(C) 142/1998 Reliance is placed b...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Tejbir Singh Dagar and ors Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.7840/2012 % Judgement Reserved on:27. h November, 2013. Judgement pronounced on:3. d January, 2014. + W.P.(C) 7840/2012 SH. TEJBIR SINGH DAGAR AND ORS ..... Petitioners Through : Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjeev Chaswal and Ms Saahila Lamba, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Through : ..... Respondents Mr. J.P. Sharma, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA DEEPA SHARMA, J.1. Vide this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking stepping up of their pay to that of their immediate juniors.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of the present writ petition are that the petitioners had joined the Railway Protection Force (RPF), Northern Railway as Constables and were subsequently promoted to the posts of Head Constable, Assistant Sub Inspector and Sub Inspector on different dates.3. As per RPF Rules, 1987, there was a post of Naik RPF which was subsequently abolished after 4th December, ...
Tag this Judgment!