Delhi Court November 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 110 of about 1,333 results (0.022 seconds)Uma Kumari Vs. the Chairman Managing Committee, Air Force School
Court: Delhi
* s + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 5675/2013 Decided on:12. 11.2014 IN THE MATTER OF : UMA KUMARI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Y.P. Singh, Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate versus THE CHAIRMAN MANAGING COMMITTEE, AIR FORCE SCHOOL & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Rekha Palli, Advocate with Ms. Garima Sachdeva and Ms. Shruti Munjal, Advocates for R-1/School. Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate for R-2/CBSE. Mr. L.R. Khatana, Advocate for R-4. CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia that the appointment of the respondent No.4 be declared as bad in law and her appointment to the post of TGT (Hindi) be quashed.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the IAF Educational and Cultural Society had issued an advertisement dated 31.01.2012 for recruitment of teaching and administrative staff, including the appointment of teachers to the post of TGT (Hindi), which is the sub...
Tag this Judgment!Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson(Publ) Vs. Mercury Electronics and anr
Court: Delhi
$~ 21. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 442/2013 % Judgment dated 12.11.2014 TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON(PUBL)..... Plaintiff Through: Ms.Prathiba M. Singh, Sr. Adv. with Ms.Saya Choudhary Kapur, Mr.Ashutosh Kumar, Mr.B. Prashant Kumar and Mr.Saurabh Anand, Advs. versus MERCURY ELECTRONICS & ANR ..... Defendant Through: Mr.Saikrishna Rajagopal, Mr.Sunil Dalal, Mr.Rajiv K. Choudhary and Ms.Rachel Mamatha and Ms.Savni Dutt, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) I.A. 3825/2013 (STAY) & I.A. 4694/2013 (O39R4= By D-2) 1. Subsequent to the last order dated, 14.10.2014, the parties have appeared and made submissions. Ericsson, as per the directions of the court and upon being asked by the court has produced 26 license agreements. Micromax has asked for agreements/offers by Ericsson with other Indian parties. After hearing submissions and perusing the rates which were contained therein, the court directs as follows:2. The Defendants shall ...
Tag this Judgment!Jaganath and ors Vs. State and anr
Court: Delhi
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4303/2014 JAGANATH & ORS Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate with petitioners in person. versus STATE & ANR Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State with SI Renuka PS Tilak Nagar. Complainant in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % ORDER1211.2014 Crl. M.A. No.14876/2014 (for exemption) Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed off. CRL.M.C. 4303/2014 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.671/2004 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Tilak Nagar on 28th August, 2004 on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.2. Issue notice. Mr. Amit Ahlawat, Additional Public Prosecutor enters appearance and accepts notice on behalf of the State/respondent No.1.3. Petitioners as well as complainant/respondent No.2-Meena are ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Anita Gupta and ors Vs. Shri Narender Kumar Gupta and anr
Court: Delhi
$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 632/2009 SMT. ANITA GUPTA & ORS ..... Plaintiffs Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate versus SHRI NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA & ANR ..... Defendants Through Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL % 1. ORDER1211.2014 This suit for partition and rendition of accounts has been filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants in respect of property No.6404, gali no.4, Dev Nagar, near Kikarwala Chowk, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The property was earlier owned by Sh. Ranjit Singh Gupta. On partition of the property, 50 percent share measuring about 85 sq. yards of property No.6404, gali no.4, Dev Nagar, near Kikarwala Chowk, Karol Bagh, New Delhi came to the share of Shri Kishan Gupta, father of the parties. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that that Plaintiffs are not pressing for the proof of rendition of accounts. He urges that a preliminary decree for partition in respect of 1/7th share of the suit property i...
Tag this Judgment!Shanti Devi and ors. Vs. Parvinder
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: November 12, 2014 + RSA3302014 SHANTI DEVI & ORS. Through: ..... Appellants Mr. Manish Vats & Mr. Sandeep Gupta, Advocates versus PARVINDER ..... Respondent Through: Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % C.M.No.18494/2014 (u/S151CPC) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. C.M.No.18493/2014 (u/S5of the Limitation Act) Delay of thirty days in filing the accompanying application is condoned for the reasons stated in the application. Application is disposed of. RSA No.330/2014 & C.M.No.18492/2014 (stay) After framing of issues on an application under Section 151 of CPC, trial court has dismissed respondents suit for possession and permanent injunction. However, the First Appellate Court has reversed the findings of the trial court and has restored respondent-plaintiffs suit RSA No.330/2014 Page 1 for being tried in accordance with the law while holding as under:The counsel for the respondents No.2 to 8 has...
Tag this Judgment!Kuldeep Singh and anr Vs. State and ors
Court: Delhi
$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3440/2014 & CRL.M.A. 11904/2014 KULDEEP SINGH & ANR Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. Sarfaraz Hussain, Advocate versus STATE & ORS Through: ..... Respondents Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP for State R-2 in person Mr. Gautam Gupta, Adv. for R-3 with Mr. Ajay Kumar, Branch Manager, UBI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA ORDER % 12.11.2014 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.22/2011 registered on 17.02.2011 under Sections 420/468/471 IPC at Police Station Lodhi Colony, on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.2. Issue notice.3. Mr. O.P. Saxena, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Mr. Gautam Gupta, Advocate for the third respondent, enter appearance and accept notice. The complainant, Geeta Tripathi, who is arrayed as respondent No.2 herein, is present in person.4. The aforesaid FIR came to be lodged at the instance of the complainant alleging unauthori...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. P N Arora and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:12. h November, 2014 + LA.APP. 74/2014 UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Advocate versus P N ARORA & ANR. Through: ..... Respondent Mr. D.P. Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No.2-DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (Oral) Impugned judgment grants compensation for A category of land @ `16,74,500/- per acre with consequential benefits to respondent in respect of his land situated in village Holambi Kalan, Delhi, which was acquired vide Notification of 22nd August, 2001, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Learned counsel for appellant fairly concedes that costs imposed vide order of 17th February, 2014 have not yet been paid and undertakes on behalf of appellant that cost of `500/- would be deposited with the Advocates Welfare Fund within six weeks. Let it be so done. Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned judgment which relies upon a decision ...
Tag this Judgment!Attar Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
$~10 & 11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:12. h November, 2014 % + BAIL APPLN. 2107/2014 ATTAR SINGH Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Pradeep Arya with Mr. Narinder Chaudhary and Mr. Praveen Dabas, Advocates. versus STATE Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Navin Sharma, APP for the State. BAIL APPLN. 2108/2014 VIDYA DEVI Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Pradeep Arya with Mr. Narinder Chaudhary and Mr. Praveen Dabas, Advocates. versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Navin Sharma, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.P.VAISH VED PRAKASH VAISH, J.(ORAL) These two applications filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.) on behalf of the applicants who seek anticipatory bail in case FIR No.247/2014 under Sections 302/34 IPC registered at P.S. Kanjhawala, Delhi. Since both these applications are arising out of the same FIR, these are being taken up together for disposal. Learned counsel for the applicants subm...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Lal Vs. Provident Fund Inspector
Court: Delhi
$~57 to 98 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:12. h November, 2014 % + CRL. M.C. Nos. 3728/2014, 3737/2014, 3738/3014, 3740/2014, 3741/2014, 3742/2014, 3743/2014, 3745/2014, 3746/2014, 3747/2014, 3748/2014, 3750/2014, 3751/2014, 3752/2014, 3753/2014, 3755/2014, 4310/2014, 4315/2014, 4319/2014, 4321/2014, 4322/2014, 4323/2014, 4324/2014, 4326/2014, 4327/2014, 4328/2014, 4329/2014, 4331/2014, 4332/2014, 4333/2014, 4334/2014, 4338/2014, 4339/2014, 4341/2014 KISHAN LAL Through: Mr. Bhavesh Advocate. 3739/2014, 3744/2014, 3749/2014, 3754/2014, 4320/2014, 4325/2014, 4330/2014, 4336/2014, ..... Petitioner Kumar Sharma, versus PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR Through: ..... Respondent Mr. K.R. Chawla, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.P.VAISH VED PRAKASH VAISH, J.: (ORAL) 1. By filing the present petitions under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) the petitioner seeks quashing of complaint case under paragaraph 7 & 8 of Employ...
Tag this Judgment!Prabha Goel Vs. Nirmal Kumari JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV.No.462/2011 12th November, 2014 % PRABHA GOEL Through: ......Petitioner Ms. Beenashaw N. Soni, Advocate. VERSUS NIRMAL KUMARI JAIN AND ORS. ...... Respondents Through: Ms. Shobha, Advocate with Mr. Akanksha Kaushik, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M.(M) No.20967/2011 1. This is an application for filing additional evidence/documents. This application has to be dismissed for the simple reason that Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh (dead) through LRs. (2010) 2 SCC15has held that whatever a tenant has to state and file for seeking leave to defend is to be done within the 15 days statutory period and after the 15 days statutory period, condonation of delay of even one day is not possible. Effectively, therefore the Supreme Court holds that the statutory period of 15 days is sacrosanct and within which period a...
Tag this Judgment!