Delhi Court October 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 12 of about 220 results (0.019 seconds)Union of India Vs. Dharam Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:28. h October, 2014 % + LA.APP. 230/2014 & C.M. No.7148/2014 UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Advocate versus DHARAM SINGH & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. D.P. Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No.12-DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR Sunil Gaur, J (ORAL) Learned counsel for appellant submits that the costs imposed vide order of 25th April, 2014 shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee positively within twelve weeks. Let it be so positively done, failing which the costs be recovered from appellant in accordance with the law. Impugned judgment grants compensation as of A category of land @ `17, 29,500/- per acre with consequential benefits in respect of respondents land situated in village Bhorgarh, Delhi acquired vide Notification of 7th December, 2001, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. LA.APP No.230/2014 Page 1 U...
Tag this Judgment!Shishir Gupta Vs. Air India Limited
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:25. 09.2014 Judgment delivered on:28. 10.2014 % + ARB. P. 431/2012 SHISHIR GUPTA ..... Petitioner Versus AIR INDIA LIMITED + ..... Respondent ARB. P. 434/2012 SUDHANSHU BHARADWAJ ..... Petitioner Versus AIR INDIA LIMITED ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaustabh Sinha and Mr. Virender Negi, Advocates in Arb. P. 431/2012 Mr. Jitin Sahai and Mr. Naveen Gaur, Advocates in Arb. 434/2012 For the Respondents: Mr. Mudit Sharma and Mr. Tanmaya Nirmal, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER,J1 These are the petitions filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act) against a common respondent i.e., Air India Ltd.2. The respondent is resisting the appointment of arbitrator in the matter broadly on two grounds : First, that there is no dispute obtaining between the parties which, requires adjudication. Second, the arbitr...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Shankar Prasad Vs. State
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. No.740 of 2008 Reserved on:14. h October 2014 Decision on:28. h October 2014 SHIV SHANKAR PRASAD ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan with Mr. Sarim Naved and Ms. Soumya Jha, Advocates. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Isha Khanna, APP. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT2810.2014 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19 th August 2008 passed by the learned Special Judge in CC No.53 of 2006 convicting the Appellant for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and the order on sentence dated 22nd August 2008 whereby for the offence under Section 7 the Appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 1 year with fine of Rs.2,000 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for 2 months and for the offence under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, he was further sentenced to two years RI ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Jai Kumar and anr.
Court: Delhi
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:28. h October, 2014 + LA.APP. 222/2014 & C.M.No.7036/2014 UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate Versus JAI KUMAR & ANR. Through: .....Respondents Mr. D.P. Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No.2-DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR Sunil Gaur, J (ORAL) Learned counsel for appellant submits that the costs imposed vide order of 25th April, 2014 shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee positively within twelve weeks. Let it be so positively done, failing which the costs be recovered from appellant in accordance with the law. Impugned judgment grants compensation @ `12,96,455.89/- per acre with consequential benefits in respect of respondents land situated in village Khera Kalan, Delhi acquired vide Notification of 27 th October, 1999, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. LA.APP No.222/2014 Page 1 Upon hearing and perusal of...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanjeet @ Dhanne Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : October 17, 2014 Judgment Delivered on : October 28, 2014 + CRL.A.491/2013 ROHIT @ NANHE Represented by: .....Appellant Mr.Chetan Lokur, Advocate with Mr.Inderjit Singh Kapur, Advocate versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP Insp.Harish Kumar and SI Kuldeep Yadav, PS Connaught Place CRL.A.834/2013 VINOD KUMAR @ GANJA .....Appellant Represented by: Ms.Aishwarya Rao, Advocate versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP Insp.Harish Kumar and SI Kuldeep Yadav, PS Connaught Place CRL.A.838/2013 BOBBY @ ROBIN Represented by: .....Appellant Mr.Sitab Ali Chaudhary, Advocate with Mr.Hanjala Kazim, Advocate versus STATE Crl.A.No.491/2013 & conn.matters ..... Respondent Page 1 of 45 Represented by: Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP Insp.Harish Kumar and SI Kuldeep Yadav, PS Connaught Place CRL.A.823/2013 VIJAY @ BIJU Represented by: .....Appellant Ms.Sunita Arora, Advocate for Mr.Krishan Kum...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Kumar Vs. State and anr
Court: Delhi
$~2 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 4007/2014 RAMESH KUMAR Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. R.P. Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sourach Luthra, Advocate with petitioner in person versus STATE & ANR Through: ..... Respondents Mr. P.K. Mishra, APP with ASI Desh Raj Singh, PS Gazipur with R-2 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No.210/2012 registered under Section 307 IPC at Police Station Ghazipur on 07.06.2012 on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.2. Issue notice.3. Counsel for the State enters appearance and accepts notice. The second respondent/complainant, Sandeep Kumar, is also present in person. The complainant, as well as the petitioner, are identified by the Investigating Officer, Assistant Sub-Inspector Desh Raj Singh.4. It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to b...
Tag this Judgment!Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs. Shri R.P. Doharey
Court: Delhi
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on :28. 10.2014 + W.P.(C) 6534/2013, C.M. NO.14223/2013 MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through : Sh. Vaibhav Kalra, Advocate. Versus SHRI R.P. DOHAREY ..... Respondent Through : Sh. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. By these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) challenges an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 06.03.2013 in O.A. No.3071/2010. By the impugned order, the CAT modified the minor penalty to the extent that the date of its becoming effective was directed to be altered to 31.12.2001, instead of the original date, i.e. 27.09.2004.2. The brief facts are that the applicant, who at the relevant time was working as officiating Sub-Divisional Engineer (SDE), was charged for major misconduct under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) R...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Angoori Devi and anr.
Court: Delhi
$~23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:28. h October, 2014 % + LA.APP. 235/2013 UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Advocate versus ANGOORI DEVI & ANR. ..... Respondents Ms. Sriti Bisoi, Advocate for respondent No.2DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR Sunil Gaur, J (ORAL) C.M.No.15623/2014 (for delay) The stand taken in paragraph No.3 of the instant application discloses bureaucratic lethargy, which has caused delay of 241 days in filing the accompanying appeal. Applying the parameters governing condonation of delay, as reiterated by the Apex Court in Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013) 12 SCC649 to the instant case, I find that the delay occasioned has not been satisfactorily explained. Hence, this application is dismissed. LA.APP. 235/2013 & C.M.No.15622/2013 (for stay) Impugned judgment grants compensation for A category of land LA.APP.NO.235/2013 Page 1 @ `14,75,000/- per acre with ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Phull Vs. the State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:28. h October, 2014 + Crl. M.B.993/2014 in CRL.A. 612/2014 ASHOK KUMAR PHULL Through: ..... Appellant Mr K.B. Andley, Senior advocate with Mr. Mohammed Shamikh, Advs. Versus THE STATE OF DELHI Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Jasbir Kaur, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State alongwith SI Bupender Singh Police Station AC. Branch . % CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.Crl. M.B9932014 (for suspension of sentence) 1. This is an application for suspension of sentence and for release of the appellant on bail during the pendency of the appeal. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:(i) RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine SI for 2 months u/s 120B IPC; (ii) RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine SI for 2 months u/s 7 of PC Act read with Section 120B IPC and (iii) RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of pa...
Tag this Judgment!Sandeep Kumar and ors Vs. the State and anr
Court: Delhi
$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4823/2014 SANDEEP KUMAR & ORS Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. C.M. Grover, Advocate with petitioners in person. versus THE STATE & ANR Through: ..... Respondents Mr. P.K. Mishra, APP for the State with ASI Jay Parkash, PS CAW Cell, Nanakpura. Dr. Kanwal Sapra, Advocate for complainant with complainant in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(ORAL) Crl. M.A. No.16560/2014 (for exemption) Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed off. CRL.M.C. 4823/2014 1. This petition moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.130/2012 registered under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Crime Against Women Cell, Nanakpura, New Delhi on 4th October, 2012 on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.2. Issue notice. Mr. P.K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor and Dr. Kanwal Sapra, Advocate enter a...
Tag this Judgment!