Delhi Court November 2014 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Smt. Baljit Kaur Vs. Shri Yogesh Kumar and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2014
$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1194/2009 Date of decision :13th November, 2014 % SMT. BALJIT KAUR Through: ..... Plaintiff Ms.Kamlakshi, Advocate versus SHRI YOGESH KUMAR AND ANR. ..... Defendant Through: Ms.Sapna Sinha, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.(Oral) IA.5826/2014 1. This is an application for condonation of 5 days delay in filing the OA.No.47/2014.2. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed. Delay in filing the OA is condoned.3. Application stands disposed of. OA.No.47/2014 4. This is an appeal in Chamber filed against the order of the Joint Registrar dated 20.2.2014 by which right of the defendant to file written statement was closed. Counsel for the appellant submits that the only ground on which the applicant relies for not filing the written statement is oversight.5. I have perused the order of learned Joint Registrar dated 20.2.2014, in which the learned Joint Registrar has noticed...
irfan Ali Vs. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 535 of 2008 MOHD. ISAF (IN J.C.) ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sheikh Imran Alam and Mr. Usman Chaudhary, Advocates. versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, Advocate With CRL.A. 691 of 2008 MAKISU ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sheikh Imran Alam and Mr. Usman Chaudhary, Advocates versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, Advocate With CRL.A. 576 of 2008 IRFAN ALI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sheikh Imran Alam and Mr. Usman Chaudhary, Advocates versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER1311.2014 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 21st May 2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) convicting the Appellants for the offence under Sections 328/354/380/506/34 IPC, and additionally convicting the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.(Crl.A.No). 691/2008, f...
D.G., I.C.M.R. and anr. Vs. R.C.Verma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2014
$~2. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision:13. 11.2014 % W.P.(C.) No.5710/2001 D.G., I.C.M.R. & ANR. Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. Vaibhav Kalra, Advocate. versus R.C.VERMA & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. M.C. Dhingra, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI VIPIN SANGHI, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. The petitioner Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and Union of India (UOI) have preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the order dated 17.05.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT/ Tribunal) in T.A. No.2/1999 preferred by the respondents/applicants. The Tribunal has allowed the said application and directed the petitioner to consider the application of Integrated Recruitment & Assessment Scheme (IRAS) to the technical staff of the petitioner ICMR notionally from the date when the same was made applicable to the scientific staff of ICMR. The Tribuna...
Smt. Sumitra Devi and anr. Vs. Satpal Gugnani and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.584/2014 & CM No.10688/2014 (stay) 13th November , 2014 % SMT. SUMITRA DEVI & ANR. Through: .....Petitioners None. VERSUS SATPAL GUGNANI & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Ms. Preeti Meehan, Adv. for R-1 CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This petition impugns the order of the executing court dated 29.5.2014 directing issuance of warrants of possession with respect to the suit property.2. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 states that the respondents have already taken the possession of the suit property in execution of the decree and are already in possession for about past three months.3. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 also draws the attention of this Court to an order dated 17.7.2014 and a judgment dated 21.7.2014 passed in connected matters in CM(M) No.339/2014 and CM(M) No.682/2014, respectively, showing dismissal of similar type of petitions filed...
M/S Amar Photo Studio Thr. Raj Kumar Vs. Late Sh. Niranjan Das Arora T ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % RC. REV. No.229/2014 13th November , 2014 M/S AMAR PHOTO STUDIO THR. RAJ KUMAR ......Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajat Wadhwa, Adv. and Mr. Amritansh Batheja, Adv. VERSUS LATE SH. NIRANJAN DAS ARORA THR. ITS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE SMT. MANJU ARORA ...... Respondent Through: Ms. Pooja Chhabra, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. On 14.7.2014, this Court passed the following order:C.M.No.11056/2014 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.2. Application stands disposed of. RC.REV.No.229/2014 & C.M.No.11057/2014 (stay) 1. Subject to the payment of costs of Rs.35,000/- to the respondent herein/landlord before the Court below in the form of bank draft within a period of two weeks from today, on account of delay being caused in the disposal of the leave to defend application, which is stated to be on account of the default of the present petitioner/his advocate,...
Rajesh Batra Vs. Ranbir Singh Ahlawat
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2014
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: November 13, 2014 + FAO(OS) 312/2014 RAJESH BATRA Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Tanmaya Mehta, Advocate versus RANBIR SINGH AHLAWAT ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate with Ms.Karuna Chhatwal, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. The appellant Rajesh Batra is a builder carrying on business under the name and style M/s. Shree Constructions. The respondent Ranbir Singh is the owner of a part of plot bearing Municipal No.B-39, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi. The plot measures 400 square yards, but only 200 square yards belongs to Ranbir Singh Ahlawat and the other portion belongs to his nephew Sudhanshu Ahlawat. Original title to the plot was a lease-hold tenure in favour of Late Sh.Ram Swaroop Ahlawat, the father of the respondent. The lease-hold right was transferred by DDA in favour of the respondent and his nephew...
NitIn Sethi Vs. Rajiv Mehta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2014
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgement delivered on:13. 11.2014 + ARB.P. 102/2006 NITIN SETHI ..... Petitioner versus RAJIV MEHTA ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the petitioner: Mr Himal Akhtar & Mr Sunny Kadiyan, Advs. For the respondent: Mr Ashish Aggarwal, Mr Ashish Virmani, Mr Misba Huddin Siddiqui & Ms Kritika Khanijo, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J1 The petitioner in this case seeks appointment of an arbitrator in respect of disputes articulated in the petition. Peculiarly, the petition was not filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act), but was filed under Section 7 & 8 of the said Act, and that too with the District Judge at the Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi. 1.1 The prayer made in the original petition was to the effect that the respondent should be injuncted from selling and/or alienating the shares in question, as detailed out in paragraph 10 of the petiti...
Union of India Vs. Goverdhan Dass and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:13. h November, 2014 + LA.APP. 790/2006 GOVERDHAN DASS & ANR. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. S.K.Rout & Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Through: + ..... Respondents Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Advocates for UoI/LAC LA.APP. 46/2010 UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Advocates for UoI/LAC versus GOVERDHAN DASS & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. S.K.Rout & Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (Oral) With the consent of both sides, the above-captioned two appeals were heard together as they are directed against common impugned judgment of 29th April, 2006 and are being disposed of by this common LA.APP. Nos. 790/2006 & 46/2010 Page 1 judgment. For the planned development of Delhi, land of appellantsGoverdhan Dass & Murli Manohar, situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Mohd. Pur, Munirka, Delhi w...
Ashok Kumar Vs. Vice Chancellor, Rasthriya Sanskrit Sansthan and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2014
1, 11, 12 & 13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6998, 6999, 7004/2013 & 7554/2014 Decided on :13. 11.2014 IN THE MATTERS OF ASHOK KUMAR in WP(C) SURESH KUMAR in WP(C) PRADEEP RAJPAL in WP(C) ANITA NEGI & ORS. in WP(C) ..... Petitioner No.6998/2013 ..... Petitioner No.6999/2013 ..... Petitioner No.7004/2013 ..... Petitioners No.7554/2014 Through : Mr. R.M.Tewari & Ms.Jyoti Tewari, Advocates for petitioners in WP No.6998 & 6999/2013 Ms.Rachna Aggarwal, Advocate for petitioner in WP(C) No.7004/2013 Mr.Shivam Singh, Advocate for petitioners in WP(C) No.7554/2014 versus VICE CHANCELLOR, RASTHRIYA SANSKRIT SANSTHAN & ANR. Respondents Through : Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate Mr.Amit Mahajan, CGSC for Ministry of Human Resources Development CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J.(ORAL) 1. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners praying inter alia for issuance of directions to the respondent/Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan(hereinafter referred to as `the ...
Delhi Power Supply Company Ltd. (Dt. Ltd.) Vs. M/S Hindustan Vidyut Pr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.R.P.No.72/2012 13th November, 2014 % DELHI POWER SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. (DT. LTD.) ..... Petitioner Through Ms. Avnish Ahlawat with Ms.Latika Chaudhary and Ms.Gunjan Bansal, Advocates. versus M/S HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCTS LIMITED Through None CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. ..... Respondent Yes. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. Challenge by means of this petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1980 (CPC) is to the impugned order of the trial court dated 29.5.2004 by which the trial court dismissed the application under Order XXXVII Rule 4 CPC filed by the petitioner/defendant. By the application under Order XXXVII Rule 4 CPC, the petitioner/defendant prayed for setting aside of the judgment and decree dated 07.4.2003 which was passed in default of non-filing of appearance within 10 days as required under Order XXXVII CPC.2. A reading of the impugned order shows that the trial cou...
- ‹ Prev
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- Next ›
- Last »