Delhi Court November 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 114 of about 1,333 results (0.018 seconds)Manu Abhishek Vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6572/2014 & CM APPL. 15654/2014 MANU ABHISHEK ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Sunita Bhardwaj, Advocate. versus GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Vipin Singh, Advocate. Reserved on :28. h October, 2014 Date of Decision :11. h November, 2014 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J:1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the cancellation/ withdrawal of Notification dated 28th August, 2014 which provided for a special round of online counseling for ten courses offered by colleges under respondent No.1-University. Petitioner also seeks admission against the vacant seats in BBA; B.A., LL.B; BBA, LL.B for session 2014-2015 in respondent no.2-Institute of respondent No.1-University as per his first option.2. Respondent No.1-University on 28th August, 2014 had issued a Notification to provide a fresh round of counseling (supplementary counseling) after the cut-off da...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Chadha Vs. Ratna Saini
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:11. h November, 2014 + RSA3272014 & C.M.No.18386/2014 PREM CHADHA Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Neeraj Kumar & Mr. Ankit Aggarwal, Advocates versus RATNA SAINI ..... Respondent Through: Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % Respondent-plaintiffs suit for recovery of loan amount of `65,000/was dismissed by trial court as the loan amount by way of cheque was given by husband of respondent and it was held that there was no privity of contract between the parties. The First Appellate Court vide impugned judgment of 15th July, 2014 has reversed the trial court judgment and has decreed respondent-plaintiffs suit by holding that appellant-defendant has admitted the factum of taking up of the loan from the respondent and there being an outstanding liability of `65,000/-. At the hearing of the appeal, it was submitted by learned counsel for appellant that the question of law which arises for consideration in this ...
Tag this Judgment!Kamlesh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:11. h November, 2014 + BAIL APPLN. 1102/2014 KAMLESH Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Adv. versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. M.N. Dudeja, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State alongwith ASI Tejram Police Station Najafgarh, Delhi. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA O R DER : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. This is an application u/s 438 Cr.P.C moved by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.371 u/s 7/10/55 of EC Act, P.S. Najafgarh, Delhi.2. Prosecution case is that as per the direction of Special Commissioner, Department of Food Supplies and Consumer Affairs, a team comprising of Senior Officers visited the business premises of FPS No.8994, M/s Amit Provision Store functioning at Plot No.18, Ishwar Colony, Najafgarh, Delhi on 01.05.2014. Bharat Bhushan was present, who introduced himself as helper of licensee of FPS. The record was not available in the business premises of FPS which was...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Madan Lal Radhu and anr. Vs. M/S. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.M.(M) Nos. 903/2004 & 904/2004 11th November, 2014 % 1. C.M.(M) No.903/2004 SH. MADAN LAL RADHU & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Manoj Sharma, Advocate with Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Advocate. versus M/S. ATMA RAM PROPERTIES (P) LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Sethi, Advocate with Mr. Ishan Khanna, Advocate.2. C.M.(M) No.904/2004 SH. MADAN LAL RADHU & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Manoj Sharma, Advocate with Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Advocate. versus M/S. ATMA RAM PROPERTIES (P) LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Sethi, Advocate with Mr. Ishan Khanna, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. These two petitions are disposed of by this common judgment inasmuch as the judgment of the first appellate court which is challenged in both these petitions is a common judgment dated 11.5.2004. By the judgment dated 11.5.2004, the first appellate court of t...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Financial Eyes (India) Ltd Vs. Sh Bijender Chauhan @ Bijender Kuma ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2014
$-42 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA(OS) 149/2013 & C.M. Appl. No.19141/2013 (stay) Date of decision :11. h November, 2014 % M/S FINANCIAL EYES (INDIA) LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Raman Kapur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dheeraj Sachdeva, Advocate versus SH BIJENDER CHAUHAN @ BIJENDER KUMAR Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Avinash Trivedi, Advocate with respondent in person CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA GITA MITTAL, J.(Oral) 1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant has assailed the judgment dated 23rd July, 2013 whereby the I.A. No.5269/2012 in CS(OS) 2576/2011 under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the appellant (defendant therein), seeking leave to defend and contest the suit under Order XXXVII CPC was rejected. As a result, the respondent-plaintiffs suit had been decreed for the sum of Rs.30,97,959/- in favour of the respondent with pendente lite and future interest @ 10% per ...
Tag this Judgment!Sneh Lata Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2014
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of hearing and order:11. h November 2014 + W.P.(C) 5900/2013 SNEH LATA Through: ..... Petitioner Ms. Archana Ramesh, Major K. Ramesh (Retd.), Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Anjana Gosain, Mr. Pradeep Desodya, Advocates for Union of India Ms. Anjali Vohra, Advocate for respondent No.4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI ORDER % KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.(Oral) 1. The limited issue raised by the petitioner in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that the respondents have failed to accede to her request for grant of special family pension and also grant of full AGIF benefits which the petitioner has claimed in the light of the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ petition No.67/2007 titled as Paramjeet Singh vs. Union of India decided on 12th February 2008.2. So far as the relief concerning grant of full AGIF bene...
Tag this Judgment!Ran Vir Singh Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2014
$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: November 11, 2014 + LA.APP. 371/2014 RAN VIR SINGH Through: ..... Appellant Mr. M.C. Verma, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Yeeshu Jain & Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for respondent No.1-UOI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT ORAL % C.M. No.18353/2014 (u/O XLI Rule 3A r/w Sec. 151 CPC & Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act) There is delay of 828 days in filing the accompanying appeal. The impugned judgment is of 1st May, 2012. In the instant application seeking condonation of delay, it stands categorically asserted that after passing of the impugned judgment, counsel for appellant had applied for certified copy which was handed over to appellant, who in June, 2012 had further handed it over to some other counsel engaged by co-villagers, who were pursuing the appeal against the impugned judgment. It is also averred in this application that in September, 2014, LA.APP No.371/2014 Page 1...
Tag this Judgment!Ashish JaIn and ors Vs. State Nct of Delhi and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2014
$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5043/2014 ASHISH JAIN & ORS Through: ..... Petitioner Ms. Sonia Malhotra, Advocate with Petitioners in person versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP for State with SI Arvind Kumar, PS Prashant Vihar. Mr. Yudhishtar Sharma, Adv. for R-2 with R-2 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % 1. SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.583/2013 registered at police station Prashant Vihar on 30.10.2013 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, 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. Yudhishtar Sharma, Advocate for the second respondent / complainant, enter appearance and accept notice. The parties are also identified by the Investigating Officer Sub-Inspector Arvind Kumar, Police Station Prashant Vihar.4. It is ...
Tag this Judgment!Avijeet Mullick Vs. State and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2014
$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5042/2014 AVIJEET MULLICK Through: ..... Petitioner Ms. Kusum Lata Sharma, Advocate with petitioner in person versus STATE & ANR Through ..... Respondent Mr. P.K. Mishra, APP with ASI Dharamvir Singh, PS CAW Cell, Nanakpura. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral) Crl. M.A. No.17281/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed off. CRL.M.C. 5042/2014 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.65/2009 registered on 12.5.2009 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Crime Against Women Cell, Nanakpura, on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.2. Issue notice.3. Mr. P.K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State enters appearance and accepts notice. The second respondent/complainant, Chandana Biswas, is present in person. She is also identified by the I...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Kumar Bhakri Vs. Mukesh Marwaha
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2014
$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:11. h November, 2014 + RSA3262014 SATISH KUMAR BHAKRI Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate versus MUKESH MARWAHA Through: ..... Respondent Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT ORAL % C.M.No.18364/2014 (u/S151CPC) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM No.18367/2014 (u/S5of Limitation Act & Sec.151 CPC) The delay of 10 days in re-filing the accompanying appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application. The application is disposed of. RSA No.326/2014 & C.M.No.18365/2014 (for stay) & CM No.18366/2014 (delay) A bare perusal of the application seeking condonation of delay RSA No.326/2014 Page 1 reveals that appellant had earlier filed a second appeal which was dismissed as not pressed on 30th May, 2014 and a bare perusal of the aforesaid order reveals that no liberty was granted to the appellant to file a fresh second appeal. In view of the aforesaid, this second appeal is not mai...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 109
- 110
- 111
- 112
- 113
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 118
- 119
- Next ›
- Last »