Delhi Court November 2014 Judgments
Sh. Mahinder Pratap Bhalla Vs. Sh. Narinder Pratap Bhalla and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.R.P. 48/2014 07th November, 2014 % SH. MAHINDER PRATAP BHALLA Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Sunil Goyal with Ms.Deepika Sachdeva, Advocates. versus SH. NARINDER PRATAP BHALLA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr.Sajan Narain, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M.No.7135/2014 (condonation of delay) 1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 28 days in filing the petition is condoned.2. Application is disposed of. C.R.P. 48/2014 & C.M.No.7134/2014 (Stay) 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff impugning the order of the trial court dated 30.11.2013 by which the trial court has allowed the applications and recalled the order of striking off the defence of defendant no.3/respondent no.3 and permitted the respondent no.3/defendant no.3 to file the written statement. 2(i) The subject suit is a suit for permanent and mandatory injunct...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Engineers Project India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:07. 11.2014 W.P.(C) 7970/2012 & CM199422012 M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. ..... Petitioner versus ENGINEERS PROJECT INDIA LTD. ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Yashraj Singh Deora. For the Respondent : Mr J.P. Sengh, Sr. Advocate with Mr Manoj K. Das. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petition has been filed by the petitioner-M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. (hereafter SAIL) impugning an appellate award dated 17.02.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority whereby the appeal filed by SAIL against an award dated 10.01.2008 passed by the Sole Arbitrator, in terms of the proceedings initiated under Permanent Machinery of Arbitrators (hereafter PMA), was dismissed.2. The relavant facts necessary for examining the controversy in the present petition are that SAIL awarded a contract (No.P/Proj/Modn/4011999106.1/340008) dated 25.01.1993 to Engineers Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Global Infonet Distribution Pvt Ltd Vs. Care Office Equipment Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2014
$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 2466/2013 Date of decision :7th November, 2014 % GLOBAL INFONET DISTRIBUTION PVT LTD Through: Mr. Asit Tewari, Adv. ..... Plaintiff versus CARE OFFICE EQUIPMENT LTD Through: None ..... Defendant CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.(Oral) 1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.24,78,796/-. Summons were issued in the suit on 10.12.2013. The defendant entered appearance on 24.03.2014 and sought time to file the written statement. Despite costs having been imposed on 24.07.2014, no written statement was filed by the defendant. None appeared on behalf of defendant on the last date of hearing. Even today none is present on behalf of defendant. Right to file written statement on behalf of defendant was closed on 09.10.2014. Counsel for the plaintiff prays for a decree under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.2. As per the plaint, plaintiff company is engaged in the business of trading and distribution of computer...
Tag this Judgment!Star India Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Roy Ma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order delivered on:5. h November, 2014 % + CS(OS) 3319/2014 STAR INDIA PVT LTD & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through Mr.Saikrishna Rajagopal, Adv. with Mr. Sidharth Chopra, Ms.Sneha Jain, Ms.Savni Dutt, and Mr.Avijit Sharma, Advs. versus ROY MA & Ors. ..... Defendants Through None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral) I.A. No.21479/2014 This is an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 13 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from filing the originals of the documents. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed, subject to originals being produced at the time of admission/denial of the documents. The application is disposed of. I.A. No.21480/2014 This is an application filed by the plaintiffs seeking exemption from filing the certified copies, clear copies, translations of documents and the left side margin. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed, subject t...
Tag this Judgment!Anil K. Aggarwal Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2014
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:5. h November, 2014 % + WP(C) No.6792/2014 ANIL K. AGGARWAL Through: .... Petitioner Petitioner in person. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Akshay Makhija, Ms. Pallavi Shali, Advs. for R-1/UOI. Ms. Anu Bagai, Adv. for R-2. CORAM:HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J1 This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) claims the following reliefs:A. issue writ of or in the nature of mandamus and / or any other appropriate writs, orders, directions directing the courts, tribunal and other judicial authorities within the jurisdiction of the Honble High Court of Delhi to appoint notaries registered and holding valid certificate of practice issued under the Notary Act, 1952 to act and function as Commissioner for recording of evidences in any civil or criminal trial; and not to ap...
Tag this Judgment!Action Committee Unaided Recognized Private School Vs. Honble Lt.Gover ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2014
R-2 & R-3 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 177/2014 ACTION COMMITTEE UNAIDED RECOGNIZED PRIVATE SCHOOLS ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kamal Gupta, Advocate. versus HONBLE LT.GOVERNOR & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. V.K.Tandon, Advocate with Mr. Yogesh Saini, Advocate for Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr. Prashant Ghai and Mr. Amrit Singh, Advocate for UOI. Ms. Nisha Tomar, Advocate for Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Advocate for respondent No.3. AND + W.P.(C) 202/2014 & CM APPL.1684/2014 FORUM FOR PROMOTION OF QUALITY EDUCATION FOR ALL ....Petitioner Through Mr. Vedanta Varma, Advocate versus LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. V.K.Tandon, Advocate with Mr. Yogesh Saini, Advocate for Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr. Prashant Ghai and Mr. Amrit Singh, Advocate for UOI. Ms. Nisha Tomar, Advocate for Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM: HON'BLE...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Vishwas Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2014
$~R-51 & 52 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: November 05, 2014 + CRL.A.729/2011 PARDEEP DEV Represented by: ..... Appellant Ms.Arundhati Katju, Advocate with Mr.Akshay Sharma, Advocate along with appellant produced in custody. versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP SI Ashok Giri CRL.A.172/2014 VISHNU VISHWAS Represented by: ..... Appellant Ms.Arundhati Katju, Advocate with Mr.Akshay Sharma, Advocate versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARDEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PARDEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Appellant Pardeep Dev in Crl.Appeal No.729/2011 has been produced in Court pursuant to the order dated November 03, 2014. His production was sought in Court because his counsel was not appearing in the appeal despite the appeal being on the Board for final hearing in the expedited list and having reached for hearing thrice, but not heard because of no represent...
Tag this Judgment!Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Anju Tiwari and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.L.P. 353 of 2012 NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Manchanda, Advocate. versus ANJU TIWARI & ANR. ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjiv Kumar with Mr. S.K. Santoshi, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER0511.2014 1. The Petitioner, Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), seeks leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 13th January 2012 passed by the learned Special Judge NDPS in Sessions Case No.156 of 2008 acquitting the Respondents, Anju Tiwari and Rakeshnath Tiwari, for the offences under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28th June 2008 Mr. R.R. Kumar, Superintendent, NCB, DZU (PW-1) received a secret information that Anju Tiwari, Accused No.2 (A-2) (Respondent No.1 herein) was indulging in trafficking of heroin and was receiving Afghan origin heroin from a Punjab based supplier and delivering it to Nige...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Sagar Vs. Bar Council of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2014
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) No.4738/2013 & C.M.No.10809/2013 & 4602 of 2014 (both for stay) JAGDISH SAGAR Through: ..... Petitioner Petitioner in person. Versus BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Preet Pal Singh, Adv. and Mr. Mr. Ashok Pandey, Jt. Secretary, BCI. CORAM :HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW % 1. ORDER0511.2014 This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; (i) impugns Rule 7 of Chapter III in Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules, prohibiting an officer, after his retirement or otherwise ceasing to be in service for any reason, if enrolled as an Advocate, from practicing in any of the judicial, administrative courts / tribunals / authorities which are presided over by an officer equivalent or lower to the post which such officer last held; (ii) in the alternative impugns the explanation to the said Rule explaining that an officer shall include judicial officer, officer from State o...
Tag this Judgment!Mukesh Meena Vs. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. No.327 of 2008 Reserved on: October 28, 2014 Decision on: November 5, 2014 MUKESH MEENA ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Senior Advocate with Mr. D. Thanai, Mr. V. Madhukar and Mr. Vasav Anantraman, Advocates. versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ) ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Isha Khanna, APP. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT0511.2014 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 18th March 2008 passed by the Special Judge, Delhi in CC No.67/02 convicting the Appellant for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and the order on sentence dated 24th March 2008 whereby for the offence under Section 7 the Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 3 years and a fine of Rs.20,000 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for 6 months and for the offence under Section 13 (2) he was sentenced to und...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 121
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 125
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- Next ›
- Last »