Delhi Court October 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 5 of about 220 results (0.021 seconds)M/S Digi Content Vs. M/S Mindlogicx Infotech Ltd.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order delivered on:31. t October, 2014 % + CS (OS) No.1801/2007 M/S DIGI CONTENT Through .....Plaintiff Mr. Vishnu Mehra, Adv versus M/S MINDLOGICX INFOTECH LTD. ..Defendant Through Mr. Rishi Manchanda, Adv. with Mr. Siddhartha Jain, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery for a sum of Rs.37,63,961/- against the defendant.2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the sole proprietary concern of Smt. Deepshikha Jain wife of Shri Anurag Jain carrying on inter-alia the business of printing and supplying of books. The defendant placed a purchase order bearing Reference No.MLX/PO/160/04 dated 28th September, 2004 on the plaintiff at their Delhi Office for printing and supplying of books as per the list enclosed with the said purchase order for Distance Education, Directorate of Punjab Technical University (PTU), Jalandhar at the agreed rate of 26 paisa per page. The a...
Tag this Judgment!iffco Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd..... Vs. Prem Singh and anr
Court: Delhi
$~A-39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Decision: October 31, 2014 MAC.APP. 967/2014 and CM No.17693/2014 (stay) IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD..... Appellant Through Mr.Mrinal Harsh Vardhan, Advocate. versus PREM SINGH & ANR Through None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH ..... Respondents JAYANT NATH, J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal is filed seeking to impugn the Award dated 23.07.2014.2. The brief facts giving rise to the claim petition are that respondent No.1 on 27.02.2013 suffered injuries in a road vehicular accident near Petrol Pump, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi. The claim petition was registered based on a Detailed Accident Report.3. Based on the evidence on record the Tribunal awarded the following compensation. 1.2.3. 4.5. Compensation for medical expenses Compensation for conveyance Compensation for special diet Compensation for attendant charges Compensation for future earnings and loss of income due to permanent MAC. APP. 967/2014 disabi...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kumar and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
$~R-30, 126 & 127 (Part-C) * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:30. h October, 2014 + (i) LA.APP. 152/2007 RAM KUMAR & ANR. Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Inder Singh, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: .....Respondents Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms.K. Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, Advocates for respondent-UOI + (ii) LA.APP. 201/2010 BALBIR SINGH Through: ..... Appellant Mr. N.S. Chechi, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS Through: .....Respondents Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms. K. Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, Advocates for respondent-UOI Ms. Sriti Bisoi, Advocate for Mr. Kunal Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3-DDA + (iii) LA.APP. 943/2010 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Through: ..... Appellants Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms.K. Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, Advocates for appellant-UOI versus LA.APPS. 152/07, 201/10 & 943/10 Page 1 BALBIR SINGH Through: ..... Respondent Mr. N.S. Chechi, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT ORAL With the consent of learned counse...
Tag this Judgment!Haryana Petrochemicals Ltd. and anr. Vs. Indian Petrochemicals Ltd. an ...
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on :16. 10.2014 Judgment delivered on :30. 10.2014 CRL.REV.P. 656/2009, Crl. M. (B) No.1487/2009 & Crl.M.A.Nos.10669-71/2014 HARYANA PETROCHEMICALS LTD.& ANR Through ..... Petitioners Mr. R.N. Mittal, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Tanvir Ahmed Mir and Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Advs. versus INDIAN PETROCHEMICALSLTD & ANR. Through ..... Respondents Mr. Aman Lekhi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Manoj Arora and Mr.Siddharth Shankar, Advs. for R-1. Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the State. + CRL.REV.P. 546/2011 and Crl. M.A. Nos.18867/2011 & 1064648/2014 HARYANA PETROCHEMICALS LTD. Through ..... Petitioner Mr. R.N. Mittal, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Tanvir Ahmed Mir and Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Advs. versus INDIAN PETROCHEMICALSLTD & ANR. Crl. Rev.P. Nos.656/2009, 546/2011, 617/2012, 618/2012 ..... Respondents Page 1 of 22 Through Mr. Aman Lekhi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Manoj Arora and Mr. Siddharth Shankar, Advs. for R-1. Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the State. + CRL.REV...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Singh Raghuvanshi Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3489/2014 SANJAY SINGH RAGHUVANSHI ..... Petitioner Through Mr. R.K. Shukla, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS Through .... Respondents Mr. Saqib & Mr. M.P. Singh, Advocates for the UOI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI ORDER % 30.10.2014 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.(ORAL) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents not to repatriate the petitioner from the National Security Guard (hereinafter referred to as NSG), 11 SRG, Manesar, Gurgaon (Haryana) to his parent organisation CRPF at J&K in 126th Bn. Mr. Saqib, the learned counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to sub clause (iii) of sub para (b) of Clause 1 of the Standing Order No.E303/11/2009/NSG/3643-98 in support of the decision taken by the respondents to prematurely repatriate the petitioner to his parent d...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Ashok Vs. Sh. Gagan
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RC.REV.No.237/2013 & C.M.No.10425/2013 (Stay) 30th October, 2014 % SH. ASHOK Through: ......Petitioner Mr.Durgainder Singh, Advocate. VERSUS SH. GAGAN Through: ...... Respondent Mr.Vikas Aggarwal with Mr.Karan Arora and Mr.Karan Lamba, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is filed by the petitioner/tenant impugning the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 09.5.2013 by which the Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the leave to defend application and decreed the bonafide necessity eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act with respect to the suit/tenanted premises being one shop on the ground floor of the property bearing no.B-9, Subhash Chowk, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.2. The case as set up by the respondent/landlord was that he...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/S Oceanic Solvent Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P. 681/2009 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Vishnu Mehra, Advocate versus M/S OCEANIC SOLVENT INDUSTRIES LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Virender Kumar Sharma, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER ORDER % 30.10.2014 IA No22357/2012 (for restoration) and IA No.22358/2012 (condonation of delay) 1. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties at some length at the hearing held on 03.10.2013, in connection with the captioned applications. The order dated 03.10.2013 records in extenso the assertions of both counsels. The said order reads as follows :IA Nos. 22357/2012 (for restoration) & 22358/2012 (condonation of delay) 1. Even, as per the petitioner, there is a delay of 180 days in filing the application for restoration which seeks recall of order dated 06.09.2011. The restoration application was filed on 04.12.2012. There is a delay of nearly fifteen (15) months in filing the captioned app...
Tag this Judgment!Balbir Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~R-30, 126 & 127 (Part-C) * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:30. h October, 2014 + (i) LA.APP. 152/2007 RAM KUMAR & ANR. Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Inder Singh, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: .....Respondents Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms.K. Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, Advocates for respondent-UOI + (ii) LA.APP. 201/2010 BALBIR SINGH Through: ..... Appellant Mr. N.S. Chechi, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS Through: .....Respondents Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms. K. Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, Advocates for respondent-UOI Ms. Sriti Bisoi, Advocate for Mr. Kunal Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3-DDA + (iii) LA.APP. 943/2010 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Through: ..... Appellants Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ms.K. Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, Advocates for appellant-UOI versus LA.APPS. 152/07, 201/10 & 943/10 Page 1 BALBIR SINGH Through: ..... Respondent Mr. N.S. Chechi, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT ORAL With the consent of learned counse...
Tag this Judgment!Gakko Bunka Education Soceity Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation an ...
Court: Delhi
#34 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5874/2014 GAKKO BUNKA EDUCATION SOCEITY ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Mohit Kumar Shah, Advocate versus SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Advocate Date of Decision :30. h October, 2014 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the condition in Para No.(ii) sub para (ii) imposed by the respondents vide letter dated 05 th March, 2013 while sanctioning the additional FAR for the petitioners School building situated at Sector A, Pocket B & C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi whereby the petitioner was asked to deposit Rs.2,07,73,000/- towards the additional FAR charges. Petitioner also prays for quashing the Order/Letter bearing No.D/1018/EE (Bldg) HQ-1/South DMC/2013 dated 19th December, 2013 issued by the respondent No.2 whereby it refused to refund the aforesaid amount deposited by the petitioner under ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Hans Raj and anr Vs. Shri Ajit Singh and ors
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % CM(M) No.432/2014 30th October , 2014 SHRI HANS RAJ & ANR Through: ..... Petitioners None. versus SHRI AJIT SINGH & ORS Through: ..... Respondents None. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. No one appears for the petitioners although it is 12.15 PM. I have gone through the record and therefore am proceeding to dispose of the petition. I may note that this matter was listed on two earlier dates when at the request of the petitioner the matter was adjourned and which dates are 29.4.2014 and 15.5.2014.2. By the impugned order dated 4.4.2013 the application of the respondent/plaintiff filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) whereby the respondent/plaintiff wanted to claim enhanced damages has been allowed. The relevant observations of the trial court while for allowing of the application read as under:8. Qua 1st objection: that the time lim...
Tag this Judgment!