Delhi Court November 2014 Judgments
Kiran Pal Vs. Kamla Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:10. h November, 2014 + MAT.APP. 67/2007 KIRAN PAL ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Arun Baali, Advocate versus KAMLA DEVI ..... Respondent Through: Nemo CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) The appellant had sought divorce from respondent on the ground of cruelty and desertion and vide impugned judgment of 14th January, 2005, appellants petition for divorce has been dismissed by the trial court with the finding that appellant had condoned the act of cruelty on the part of the respondent. The factual background of this case already stands noticed in the opening paragraph of the judgment and needs no reproduction. In this appeal, the respondent was served by way of publication but had chosen not to appear and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 22nd September, 2008. At the hearing, it was urged by learned counsel for appellant that the finding of appellant condoning the cruelty on the part of the respondent is not...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Balbir Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:10. h November, 2014 + LA.APP. 343/2013 UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Siddharth Panda & Mr. Priyabrat Sahu, Advocates versus BALBIR SINGH & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (Oral) C.M. No.20546/2013 (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 405 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. 343/2013 & C.M.No.20545-47 /2013 (for stay) Impugned judgment grants compensation for A category of land LA.APP.No.343/2013 Page 1 @ `14,38,125/- per ac...
Tag this Judgment!Tarun Sehgal Vs. State and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-2014
$~4 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 4525/2014 TARUN SEHGAL Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Biswajit Kumar Patra, Advocate with petitioner in person versus STATE & ANR Through: ..... Respondents Ms. Nishi Jain, APP with SI Govind Singh, PS Uttam Nagar CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA ORDER % 10.11.2014 CRL.M.A. 15507/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed off. CRL.M.C. 4525/2014 & CRL.M.A. 15508/2014 1. This petition has been moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No.396/2009 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Uttam Nagar on 24.12.2009 on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.2. Issue notice.3. Counsel for the State enters appearance and accepts notice. The complainant, Sonam, is present in person. The Investigating Officer, SubInspector Govind Singh, Police Station Uttam Nagar, also identifie...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co Ltd Vs. Beli Ram and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-2014
$~A-13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:10. 11.2014 + MAC.APP. 586/2011 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant Through Mr.Manish Kaushik, Advocate for Mr.K.L.Nandwani, Advocate. versus BELI RAM & ORS Through ..... Respondents Mr.S.K.Pandey, Advocate for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) 1. By the present appeal the appellant seeks to impugn the Award dated 15.03.2011.2. The brief facts which gave rise to the appeal and the claim petition are that respondent No.1 was injured in a road accident on 09.09.2008. He was in the process of getting into a bus. Before he could completely get into the bus, the bus was moved by the driver respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 fell down and his left leg got crushed under the wheels of the bus. The foot had to be amputated.3. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that respondent No.1 suffered injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2.4. On compensation the ...
Tag this Judgment!Dalip Kumar Bakshi Vs. Vivek Khurana and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-2014
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RC.Rev. No.267/2013 10th November , 2014 % DALIP KUMAR BAKSHI Through: ......Petitioner Mr. M.M.Kalra and Mr. A.C.Mittal, Advocates. VERSUS VIVEK KHURANA & ANR. Through: ...... Respondents Mr. J.R.Bajaj, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This rent control revision petition is filed under Section 25 B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short DRC Act) impugning the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 26.3.2013 by which the ARC has dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant and has decreed the bonafide necessity eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act with respect to the tenanted premises being one shop no.2 in property No.WZ-201 (shop bearing No.WZ2012), Hari Nagar, G-Block, New Delhi-18.2. In the eviction petition, there were two petitioners and who are the respondents herein. In the e...
Tag this Judgment!R.P. Dubey Vs. Chief of Air Staff and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.3742/2011 R.P. DUBEY Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. V.S. Tomar, Adv. versus CHIEF OF AIR STAFF & OTHERS ..... Respondents Through: Mrs. Raman Oberoi, Adv. % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI ORDER1011.2014 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.(ORAL) 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned judgment dated 24.1.2011 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) dismissing his TA /32/2010. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to grant extension of service to the petitioner for a further period of 3 years with all consequential benefits like promotion, arrears of pay and allowances and seniority etc.2. The main contention raised by the learned counsel representing the petitioner is that the application of the petitioner seeking grant of extension was not considered by the Chief of Air Staff and th...
Tag this Judgment!T. Muralidhar Vs. Pvr Murthy
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2014
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA (OS) No.115/2014 & CM No.12344/2014 Reserved on:22. d September, 2014 Date of Decision:7. h November, 2014 T. MURALIDHAR Through : versus ..... Appellant Mr. Suman Doval, Adv. PVR MURTHY ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Ankit Jain and Mr. Nimesh Chib, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR GITA MITTAL, J1 What is not the pleaded, cannot be proved, what is admitted need not be proved. It is this fundamental principle which binds every court. It is this very principle which shall be violated if the present appeal is accepted.2. On the 28th of July, 2009, the appellant had filed CS(OS)No.1397/2009 against the respondent. For the purpose of convenience, we propose to refer to the parties as plaintiff and defendant in the present judgment. Besides the residual prayer, the plaintiff sought the following prayers:a) Pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing the defendant to exec...
Tag this Judgment!Guru Premsukh Memorial College of Engineering and a Vs. All India Coun ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:7. h November, 2014. + LPA No.665/2014 & CM No.16288/2014 (for stay) GURU PREMSUKH MEMORIAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & ANR. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Jatan Singh, Mr. Soayib Qureshi & Mr. Mudit Gupta, Advs. Versus ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar & Ms. Mamta Tiwari, Advs. for R-1. Mr. Mukul Talwar with Mr. Sradhananda Mohapatra & Mr. Vipin Singh, Advs. for GGSIPU. Ms. Bandana Shukla for Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Adv. for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. This intra court appeal impugns the judgment dated 15 th September, 2014 of the learned Single Judge of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.4007/2014 preferred by the appellants.2. This appeal came up before this Court first on 29th September, 2014, when the counsels for the respondents having appeared on advance notice, we, with consent, heard the appeal finally an...
Tag this Judgment!The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc Vs. Sharekhan Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2014
.* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:17. h October, 2014 Judgment pronounced on:7. h November, 2014 % + CS(OS) No.1023/2013 THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC Plaintiff Through Mr. Raunaq Kamath, Adv. versus SHAREKHAN LIMITED Through .....Defendant Mr. M. Dutta, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The present suit for permanent injunction restraining passing off; dilution & tarnishment; unfair competition; damages; rendition of accounts; delivery up; etc. has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant in respect of the trademark MAXTRADE. Along with the suit, plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 being I.A.No.8797/2013.2. The suit along with said interim application was listed before Court on 24th May, 2013. After hearing, detailed ex-parte order was passed restraining the defendant, its officers, agents, servants, etc. from using the trade mark MAXTRADE or any other mark that is identical/dece...
Tag this Judgment!Devesh Bbyan Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, National Aviation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.2596/2010 Reserved on:15. 10.2014 Date of decision:07. 11.2014 IN THE MATTER OF: DEVESH BBYAN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Zile Singh Bbyan, father of the petitioner in person versus CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL AVIATION COMPANY OF INDIA LTD. .....Respondent Through Ms. Meenakshi Sood, Advocate CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated 8.12.2008 issued by the respondent Air India(erstwhile National Aviation Company of India Ltd.), intimating him that he was found unsuitable in the Simulator Flight Proficiency Test and resultantly, was not selected for the post of a Trainee Pilot.2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that in December 2007, the respondent Air India(erstwhile National Aviation Company of India Ltd.) (hereinafter referred to as `the respondent company) had issued an advertisement in various newspapers inviting applications for the posts ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 117
- 118
- 119
- 120
- 121
- 123
- 124
- 125
- 126
- 127
- Next ›
- Last »