Delhi Court October 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 4 of about 220 results (0.039 seconds)Sh.D.C. Thakur Vs. Sh.Shyam Sunder Chadha
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.M.(M) No.964/2014 & C.M.Nos.17728/2014 (Stay), 17729/2014 (Exemption) % 31th October, 2014 SH.D.C. THAKUR Through ..... Petitioner Mr.C.S.Rathour, Advocate. versus SH.SHYAM SUNDER CHADHA Through CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA ..... Respondent To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. Challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned order of the trial court dated 05.9.2014 rejecting an application of the petitioner/plaintiff to lead further evidence. The subject suit is a suit for specific performance for a prospective industrial plot of 400 sq. yds. to be allotted to the respondent/defendant. The petitioner/plaintiff relies upon the two documents dated 28.12.1996 and 30.12.1996 to allege that the petitioner has an agreement to sell of the suit property with the respondent/defendant. The petitioner I may note is an Advocate.2. A reading of the impugned...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Cable Industries and anr. Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:15. h October, 2014 Date of Decision:31. t October, 2014 % + CRL. M.C. 2895/2012 VIJAY CABLE INDUSTRIES & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. R.M. Tufail with Mr. Vishal Raj Sehijpal and Mr. Zuber Khan, Advocates. versus RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur with Mr. Somiram Sharma, Advocates. Mr. Karan Singh, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH JUDGMENT1 The petitioners by filing the present petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter after referred to as Cr.P.C.) have challenged the order dated 27.07.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, SE, Saket Courts, New Delhi whereby criminal revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed.2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is dealing in sale and supply of Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC) and other allied products, the respondent No.1 supplied PVC to the petitioner compan...
Tag this Judgment!Kartar Singh Vs. Pooja
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:31. t October, 2014 + CM(M) 962/2014 & C.M.No.17680-81/2014 KARTAR SINGH Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Vijay Ahlawat & Mr. Amit Wahi, Advocates Versus POOJA ..... Respondent Through: Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (Oral) In this petition, orders of 29th August, 2014 and 30th September, 2014 of the concerned Family Court are assailed on the ground that in a review petition by the respondent, the allegations of fraud are not required to be gone into and the review petition is not maintainable, as there is no ground to review the judgment of 9th December, 2013 and the review petition is barred by time. Upon hearing and on perusal of the aforesaid order, I find this petition to be premature. Merely because respondent has been directed to file affidavits, it does not mean that the evidence is to be led on the allegations of fraud. Needless to say, the concerned family court shall decide the pending review petit...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Development Authority Vs. Rajiv Gupta
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:31. 10.2014 + LPA No.571 of 2014 CM Nos.14305, 14306, 14307 & 14308 of 2014 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ...... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Sr. Standing Counsel, DDA with Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing Counsel, DDA and Mr. Amit Mehra, Adv. versus RAJIV GUPTA ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI, J.(Oral) 1. This Letters Patent Appeal impugns a judgment dated 23.8.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No.1415/2013 whereby the appellant/DDA has been directed to allot Flat No.108, Second Floor, Pocket-2, Sector-23, Rohini, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Flat No.108) and in the event of the said flat not being available, an alternate flat in the same locality be allotted to the petitioner (respondent herein) within eight (8) weeks thereof. To balance the equities, the respondent herein had been directed to pay the DDA, the cost o...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Modi Investment and Financial Services Pvt. Ltd Vs. Apollo Intern ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on:31. 10.2014 + I.A. Nos. 16903-16906/2010 in CS (OS) 2205/2010 K.K. Modi Investment & Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. ....Plaintiff Through Mr. Arvind K. Nigam, Senior Advocate with Ms. Liza M. Baruah and Ms.Manmeet Arora, Advocates Versus Apollo International Inc. & Ors. ..... Defendants Through Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Senior Advocate, Mr. K.R. Singh, Mr. Manish Dembla & Mr. Ashish Sindhu, Advocates for D2 to D8. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.I.A. No.16903-16906/2010 1. These are two applications one filed by defendant No.2 to 8 under Order I Rule 10 CPC for deletion of the applicants as parties and under Order VII Rule 11 CPC respectively for rejection of the plaint.2. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction. As per the plaint, the plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 said to be part of the K.K. Modi Group of Companies. It is claimed that K.K. Modi Group of Comp...
Tag this Judgment!Neena Vohra Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:31. t October, 2014 + RSA3122014 & C.M.No.17779/2014 NEENA VOHRA Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Manjit Singh Chauhan, Advocate versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Arjun Pant, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (Oral) CM No.17779/2014 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. RSA3122014 The appellant plaintiff had sought direction to respondent by way of mandatory injunction to convert leasehold plot of land measuring 216 square meters bearing No.124, Block-D, Masjid Moth Residential Scheme, New Delhi into freehold in the name of the appellant plaintiff. The appellants suit for mandatory injunction was dismissed by trial court but the first appellate court vide impugned judgment has permitted the conversion of the suit property from leasehold to freehold subject to appellant paying the misuser charges. RSA3122014 Page 1 At the hearing of this appeal, it was vehemently urged by learned...
Tag this Judgment!G S Dhodi Vs. Govt of Nct of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:31. 10.2014 W.P. (C) 5510/2013 & CM No.12264/2013 G S DHODI ..... Petitioner versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : In person For the Respondent : Ms Zubeda Begum, St. Counsel (GNCTD) and Ms Sana Ansari, Advocate. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner impugns an administrative order dated 24.06.2013 issued by respondent No.2 whereby damage charges for unauthorized occupation of residential accommodation were revised w.e.f. 01.01.2013. The petitioners limited challenge is with respect to the retrospective revision of the said charges.2. The short question to be considered is whether the respondents could revise the damage charges for unauthorized occupation of residential accommodation provided by respondent no.1, with retrospective effect. Briefly stated the relevant facts necessary to consider the controversy are ...
Tag this Judgment!Crest Education (P) Ltd. Vs. Career Launcher (i) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgement delivered on:31. 10.2014 + O.M.P. 201/2013 CREST EDUCATION (P) LTD. ..... Petitioner Versus CAREER LAUNCHER (I) LTD. .... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the petitioner: Mr Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. with Mr Rajat Malhotra & Mr Ojasvi Khaneja, Advs. For the respondent: Mr D.K. Sharma & Mr O.S. Punia, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J IA No.3467/2013 (condonation of delay in re-filing) 1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 66 days in re- filing the petition. Notice in this application was issued on 01.03.2013. Since then pleadings have been completed in the captioned application. The relief sought in the application is opposed by the respondent. Briefly, for the purposes of disposal of this application, following dates and events need to be noted.2. The award, which is impugned by the petitioner, and which is subject matter of the main petition, is dated 18.08....
Tag this Judgment!Rahul Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:31. t October, 2014 + CRL.A. 431/2013 & CRL.MB6542013 RAHUL Through: ..... Appellant Ms. N.R. Nariman, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Ritu Gauba, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State alongwith SI Vishal Police Station Adarsh Nagar CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. On 10.12.2010, PW3-Mohd. Nuruddin was standing at Azad Pur Bus Terminal and was waiting for a bus to reach Majnu Ka Tila. At about 12.30 am, two boys came there from MCD Colony, Model Town side and attempted to remove the mobile phone and currency notes from him. One of the assailants who was having a knife hit on his right hand. He raised alarm bachao bachao, loot liya loot liya. PW2 Constable Subhash who was on patrolling duty, on hearing the alarm reached the spot. The boys were apprehended by complainant - Mohd. Nuruddin with the help of Constable Subhash and public persons. Their names were revealed a...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:31. t October, 2014 + RSA3132014 & C.M.Nos.17785-86/2014 VINOD Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Respondent Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (Oral) CM No.17786/2014 Allowed subject to just exceptions. RSA3132014 and CM No.17785/2014 (stay) The appellant plaintiff, a government employee with RPF Northern Railways was charge-sheeted and after a departmental enquiry vide order of 26th February, 1981, he was dismissed from service and against the said order, the appellant had preferred a statutory appeal and thereafter he had filed a civil suit seeking declaration that his dismissal from service stands vitiated as principles of natural justice were not followed. The trial court had decreed the appellant plaintiffs suit while holding that defence counsel was not provided to the appellant, there was no evidence that he was under the influence of liquor and tha...
Tag this Judgment!