Delhi Court November 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 123 of about 1,333 results (0.023 seconds)Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Mohd. Yusuf
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment pronounced on:7. h November, 2014 % + I.A. No.10071/2013 in CS(OS) No.3102/2012 KANWAR SINGH SAINI Through ..... Plaintiff Mr.Tanmaya Mehta, Adv. versus MOHD YUSUF Through ..... Defendants Mr.Sree Prakash Sinha, Adv. with Mr.Rakesh Mishra, Adv. for D-1. Ms.Savita Rustogi, Adv. for proposed D-3 and 4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. By this order, I propose to decide the abovementioned pending application, being I.A. No.10071/2013, filed by the applicant/plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC.2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction against the defendants namely Sh.Mohd. Yusuf and Sub-Registrar, Mehrauli. The following reliefs are prayed:a) declaring the statement made by the plaintiff before the learned Civil Judge, Delhi on 29.04.2003 in the suit titled as Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini and the order dated 12.05.2003 a...
Tag this Judgment!Krishan Chander Vs. the State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. No.634 of 2008 Reserved on: October 29, 2014 Decision on: November 7, 2014 KRISHAN CHANDER ..... Appellant Through: Mr. N. Hariharan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Varun Deswal, Mr. Siddharth S. Yadav, Mr. Amit S. Chauhan, Mr. Sahil Paul, Mr. Vaibhav Sharma and Mr. Akshay Bhandari, Advocates. versus THE STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Isha Khanna, APP. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT0711.2014 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14th July 2008 passed by the Special Judge, Delhi in CC No.21/05 convicting the Appellant for the offence under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and the order on sentence dated 15th July 208 whereby for each of the aforementioned offences he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for two years with fine of Rs.5,000 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for two months. Both sentences w...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. M/S Student Travel Corporation
Court: Delhi
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:7. h November, 2014 % + LPA No.463/2014 UNION OF INDIA Through: .. Appellant Mr. R.V. Sinha, Adv. Versus M/S STUDENT TRAVEL CORPORATION .. Respondent Through: Mr. Giriraj Subramanium, Adv. CORAM:HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J1 This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 19th May, 2014 of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3013/2014 filed by the respondent.2. The writ petition from which this appeal arises was filed by the respondent / writ petitioner impugning the Commercial Circular dated 4th September, 2009 of the appellant Railways, of doing away with the Scheme formulated as far back as in the year 1980 of Rail Tourist Agents, in the light of drastic changes in 33 years from when the Scheme was first formulated and also directing that no further appointments of Rail Tourist Agents be made and observing that the licences of the existing Rail Tourist A...
Tag this Judgment!Seema Satsangi Vs. Inderjeet Singh
Court: Delhi
$-6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 62/2013 % Date of decision :07. h November, 2014 SEEMA SATSANGI Through: ..... Appellant Mr. J.S. Rawat, Advocate versus INDERJEET SINGH Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA GITA MITTAL, J.(Oral) C.M. Appl. 18784/2013 (delay in filing) For the reasons stated, the delay of 53 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Applications stands disposed of. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 62/2013 1. The appellant has assailed the order dated 20th April, 2013 passed on her application dated 10th January, 2011 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in HMA3192010.2. The appellant wife had sought an order against the respondent husband seeking interim maintenance for the two minor sons of the parties aged 13 years and 14 years, respectively, who are residing in the care and custody of the their mother. After considering the response of the respondent as well as the do...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Mohan Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3968/2012 Reserved on :09. 09.2014 Pronounced on :07. 11.2014 IN THE MATTER OF : MADAN MOHAN ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Shankar Raju with Mr. Nilansh Gaur, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Ms. Aastha Jain and Ms. Ruchi Jain, Advocates for UOI. CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J.1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for quashing of the order dated 23.4.2012 issued by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (in short the ACC), in supersession of its earlier order dated 19.3.2012, whereunder he was appointed as a Director (Finance) in the respondent No.2/Security Printing Minting Corporation of India Ltd. (SPMCIL) for a period of five years from the date of his assuming charge of the post or till his superannuation, and proceeding to approve the appointment of the respondent No.3 to the very same pos...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupender Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : November 07, 2014 + CRL.A.1088/2014 BHUPENDER SINGH Represented by: .....Appellant Mr.Ravinder Kumar Katna, Advocate versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and the State and having perused the evidence led at the trial, we commence our decision in the appeal which challenges the appellant being convicted for the offence of having murdered his son, rather unconventionally for an appeal at a murder trial, by noting the answers given by the appellant when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The reason being it would save us the trouble to note the testimony of the various witnesses who have proved the appellant being present in the house with his son and his wife and daughter not being in the house and he being seen with a hammer in his han...
Tag this Judgment!Naveen Gupta Vs. Santosh Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order delivered on:7. h November, 2014 % + CS(OS) 798/2004 NAVEEN GUPTA Through ..... Plaintiff Mr.Ashwini Kumar Mata, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Sumant De, Mr. A.K. Mehta & Mr.Raghav Kapoor, Advs. versus SANTOSH GUPTA & ORS Through None ..... Defendants CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral) I.A. No.21595/2014 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. I.A. No.21593/2014 (u/o XXIII R3CPC) & I.A. No.21594/2014 (u/o XXXIX R1& 2 CPC) 1. On 23rd July, 2004 plaintiff Sh.Naveen Gupta filed the suit for declaration and injunction seeking declaration that the properties described in para-3 of the plaint constitute estate of deceased father and not property of individual member(s) of the family and the respective instruments alleged by defendants be cancelled and delivered up. Prayer is further made for injunction by way of consequential relief thereby restraining defendants from claiming or deali...
Tag this Judgment!Balli Vs. Kallo Devi and anr
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:26. h September, 2014 Judgment pronounced on:7. h November, 2014 % + I.A. No.13520/2014 in CS(OS) 2196/2014 BALLI Through ..... Plaintiff Mr.Anuj Kumar Garg, Adv. versus KALLO DEVI & ANR Through ..... Defendants Mr.S.N.Kalra, Adv. for D-1. Ms.R.S.Bobde, Adv. with Ms.Mrinalini Sen Gupta, Adv. for D-2/DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The present suit for permanent injunction has been filed by the plaintiff in respect of the suit property i.e. F-268, Kot Kumhar Basti, Hauz Rani, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi- 110017 against the defendants i.e. Smt. Kallo Devi, defendant No.1 and DDA, defendant No.2.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that he being a bonafide purchaser of the suit property has been staying in the suit property for last more than 30 years along with his family. The suit property being old, needed repair work, which was initiated by the plaintiff. However, defendant No.1, a property de...
Tag this Judgment!Gurbachan Singh Saluja Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:7. h November, 2014 (i) + W.P.(CRL) 35/2014 GURBACHAN SINGH SALUJA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Priyanka Sinha & Mr. Ashwarya Sinha, Advocates versus THE STATE Through: (ii) + ..... Respondent Mr. Rajesh Majajan, Additional Public Prosecutor for State Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2 W.P.(CRL) 42/2014 GURBACHAN SINGH SALUJA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Priyanka Sinha & Mr. Ashwarya Sinha, Advocates versus THE STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Rajesh Majajan, Additional Public Prosecutor for State Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (Oral) In the above captioned first petition, impugned order of 26th W.P.(Crl.) No.35/2014 W.P.(Crl.) No.42 /2014 Page 1 November, 2013 declines petitioners application for release of deposit of `70 Lakhs deposited with the Registrar Gener...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Kumar JaIn and Sons (Huf) Vs. Sh. Prem Prakash and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.M.(M) No.478/2014 07th November, 2014 % SANTOSH KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF) ..... Petitioner Through Mr.V.K.Srivastava, Advocate. versus SH. PREM PRAKASH & ANR. Through ..... Respondents Mr.Sanjay Sharma, Advocate for R1&2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner/landlord impugning the concurrent judgments of the courts below; the Additional Rent Controller dated 8.9.2011 and the Rent Control Tribunal dated 24.3.2014 dismissing the eviction petition filed by the petitioner/landlord under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Courts below have held that the respondent no.1 herein/tenant has not illegally sublet the suit/tenanted premises to respondent no.2.2. The tenanted premises is a shop no.16 (private shop no.15), on the groun...
Tag this Judgment!