Delhi Court November 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 120 of about 1,333 results (0.021 seconds)Praveen Vs. the State and anr
Court: Delhi
$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4954/2014 PRAVEEN Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Charanjit & Nitin Sharma, Advocates versus THE STATE & ANR Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State Mr. Niraj Chaudhary & Mr. A.S. Sharma, Advocates for R-2 with R-2 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral) CRL.M.A. 17156/2014 This application has been moved by the petitioner seeking early hearing of the matter which has been posted for hearing on 13.01.2015. Issue notice. Counsel for the State, as well as counsel for the second respondent/complainant, Santosh Sharma, enter appearance and accept notice. They state that they have no objection to the preponement of the matter. Consequently, the application is allowed and the matter is taken up for hearing today itself. The application stands disposed off. The next date of 13th January, 2015 stands cancelled. CRL.M.A. 16953/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed,...
Tag this Judgment!Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited Vs. Jamshyad Sethna and anr
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order delivered on:10. h November, 2014 % + I.A. No.300/2013 and I.A. No.3756/2014 in CS(OS) No.2172/2007 BANYAN TREE HOLDING (P) LIMITED. ..... Plaintiff Through Mr. Pravin Anand, Adv. versus JAMSHYAD SETHNA AND ANR ..... Defendants Through Mrs.Prathiba M. Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Vaibhav Vutts, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral) 1. By this order I propose to decide two applications of the plaintiff being I.A. No.300/2013 and I.A. No.3756/2014 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint.2. The plaintiff had filed the present suit for passing off, unfair competition, dilution of trademark, rendition of accounts of profit, delivery up, damages, etc against the defendant in the year 2007.3. Plaintiff filed an application being I.A. No.15722/2009 for amendment of plaint on 2nd December, 2009 to bring on record the factum of registration of trademark No.1254023 in favour of the pla...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Co Ltd Vs. Amarjeet Salhotra and ors
Court: Delhi
$~A-28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Decision: November 10, 2014 MAC.APP. 490/2013 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant Through Mr.R.K.Tripathi, Advocate. versus AMARJEET SALHOTRA & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr.M.C.Sharma, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(Oral) CM Nos.17187/2013 (for restoration) This is an application for restoration of the appeal which was dismissed on 22.10.2013. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The appeal is restored to its original position. CM No.16705/2014 (delay) This is an application for condonation of delay in re-filing the application. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. CM No.16704/2014 This is an application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC for impleading legal heirs of deceased respondent No.2. It is pointed out that respondent No.2 has expired on 27.08.2013. It is urged in the application that apart from respondent No.1, respondent N...
Tag this Judgment!Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants Vs. Tarun Goyal and ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:10. h November, 2014. + CHAT.A.REF. No.4/2014 COUNCIL OF THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh Agarwal and Mr. Pulkit Agarwal, Advs. Versus TARUN GOYAL & ANR Through: ..... Respondents None. AND + CHAT.A.REF. No.6/2014 COUNCIL OF THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh Agarwal and Mr. Pulkit Agarwal, Advs. Versus TARUN GOYAL & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. Chartered Accountant (CA) Mr. Tarun Goyal, a member of the petitioner Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and having membership No.085813, respondent No.1 in both the petitions (respondent No.2 in both the petitions is the Union of India, a proforma party) having been found guilty of other misconduct falling under Section 22 read with Section 21 of The Chartered Accountants ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Shamsher and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:10. h November, 2014 + LA.APP. 177/2013 UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Siddharth Panda & Mr. Priyabrat Sahu, Advocates versus SHAMSHER & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (Oral) C.M. No.14019/2013 (u/O XXXXI Rule 3A r/w Sec. 151 CPC & Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act) The stand taken in paragraph No.3 of the instant application discloses bureaucratic lethargy, which has caused delay of 157 days in filing the accompanying appeal. Applying the parameters governing condonation of delay, as reiterated by the Apex Court in Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013) 12 SCC649to the instant case, I find that delay occasioned has not been satisfactorily explained. Hence, this application is dismissed. LA.APP. 177/2013 & C.M.No.14018/2013 (for stay) Impugned judgment grants compensation for C category of land LA.APP.No.177/2013 Page 1 @ `18,47,539.68/- per acre wi...
Tag this Judgment!Meenu Seth Vs. Binu Seth and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:10. h November, 2014 + FAO1872014 MEENU SETH Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Gauri Gupta & Ms. Tania Singh, Advocates versus BINU SETH & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. V.D. Pahuja, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (Oral) Appellants application for appointment of guardian of a person in property of her husband-Binu Seth is dismissed as not maintainable by the trial court vide order of 17th April, 2014. The finding returned in the impugned order is as under:In the instant case, considering the facts and circumstances of the matter and in view of the various examination of the allegedly mentally ill person namely Binu Seth by the court, where he could answer all the questions properly and behaved normal throughout his examination. In these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that allegedly mentally ill person Binu Seth is not in a capacity to manage himself ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Suraj Bhan (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:10. h November, 2014 + LA.APP. 159/2013 UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Siddharth Panda & Mr. Priyabrat Sahu, Advocates versus SURAJ BHAN (DECEASED) & ORS. Through: Nemo. ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (Oral) C.M. No.13863/2013 (u/O XXXXI Rule 3A r/w Sec. 151 CPC & Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act) The stand taken in paragraph No.3 of the instant application discloses bureaucratic lethargy, which has caused delay of 236 days in filing the accompanying appeal. Applying the parameters governing condonation of delay, as reiterated by the Apex Court in Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013) 12 SCC649to the instant case, I find that delay occasioned has not been satisfactorily explained. Hence, this application is dismissed. LA.APP. 159/2013 & C.M.No.13862/2013 (for stay) Impugned judgment grants compensation for A category of land LA.APP No.159/2013 Page 1 @ `19,43,500/- p...
Tag this Judgment!Rattan Lal Raina Vs. India Meteorological Department and anr.
Court: Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:10. 11.2014 W.P.(C) 7831/2010 & CM No.20246/2010 RATTAN LAL RAINA ..... Petitioner versus INDIA METEOROLOGICAL DEPARTMENT AND ANR. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr B. L. Wali. For the Respondents : Mr Amit Mahajan, CGSC with Ms K. Barua. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner impugns an order dated 03.11.2010 communicating the decision of the respondents to decline the petitioner's request to retain the residential accommodation being Qr. No.D-23, Type IV, C.A.D. Colony, Jor Bagh, New Delhi (hereafter referred to as said premises), for a further period till the situation improves in his native place (i.e. Kashmir) enabling his safe return or till he is able to make an alternate arrangement. The petitioner claims to belong to a minority community from the State of Jammu & Kashmir and a victim of terrorism and strife in that State. It is the ...
Tag this Judgment!Lajwanti JaIn Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr
Court: Delhi
$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:10. 11.2014 W.P.(C) 4231/2014 & CM No.8498/2014 LAJWANTI JAIN .... Petitioner versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr N.S. Dalal, Advocate For the Respondents :Mr Yeeshu Jain, Advocate with Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for R-1 Mr Arjun Pant, Advocate for R-2 CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. Mr Yeeshu Jain, has handed over the counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.1, which is taken on record.2. The petitioner seeks the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 2013 Act) which came into effect on 01.01.2014. A declaration is sought to the effect that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herei...
Tag this Judgment!Ajeet Singh Katiyar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
$~ * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision :10. h November, 2014 CRL.A. 898/2010 AJEET SINGH KATIYAR Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Joginder Tuli, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for State with ASI Prabha Karan, PS Delhi Cantt. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRATIBHA RANI, J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant Ajeet Singh Katiyar challenging the judgment dated 08.12.2009 and order on sentence dated 10.12.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts in Sessions Case No.24/2008 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under:Under Section 376(2)(g) IPC32834 IPC36634 IPC506Part-I IPC Sentence RI for 14 years RI for 5 years RI for 7 years RI for 1 year Fine 10,000/5,000/5,000/- In default SI for 2 years SI for 6 months SI for 6 months - All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.2. In brief, the case of the Prosecution is that the Prosecutrix alongwtih her f...
Tag this Judgment!