Delhi Court November 2014 Judgments
Mithilesh Kumar Pandey Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2014
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:5. h November, 2014 % + W.P.(C) No.6487/2014 MITHILESH KUMAR PANDEY .. Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Adv. with Petitioner in person. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: .. Respondents Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj & Ms. Rajul Jain, Advs. for UOI. Mr. Angha Desai with Mr. Mithilesh Kumar, Advs. for R-4. CORAM:HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J1 This petition, by an advocate, filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), seeks a direction to the Union of India (UOI) through the Secretary, Ministry of Culture and to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to provide financial, technical and other assistance necessary to preserve, protect and maintain the articles belonging to Dr. Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar kept at Shantivan, Nagpur, a private museum.2. It is the case of the petitioner, i) that the said private museum has been set up by the respondent n...
Tag this Judgment!Pardeep Dev 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!State Vs. Deepak
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2014
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 271/2014 STATE Represented by: ..... Petitioner Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP with Insp.Vivek Tyagi, PS Geeta Colony. versus DEEPAK Represented by: ..... Respondent Respondent in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA ORDER0511.2014 % Crl.M.A. 5997/2014 Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. Crl.M.A. 5996/2014 For the reasons stated in the application the delay of 26 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CRL.L.P. 271/2014 1. State seeks leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated November 29, 2013 acquitting the respondent of the charge under Section 363/376 IPC. The FIR was registered on the complaint of PW-1 the father of the prosecutrix who found her missing at about 8.30 AM on July 29, 2012 on being informed by his son Devender. The prosecutrix had left a letter at home mentioning that she was going to commit suicide. The complainant along with his son went to Yamuna river...
Tag this Judgment!Mahinder Singh and anr Vs. Gaon Sabha Ghitorni
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2014
$~31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:5. h November, 2014 % + W.P.(C) 7563/2014 MAHINDER SINGH & ANR Represented by : ..... Petitioners Mr. B.S. Maan, Adv. Versus GAON SABHA GHITORNI Represented by : ..... Respondent None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) W.P.(C) 7563/2014 1. The present petition is directed against the impugned order dated 11 th July, 2014 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Delhi, in Case No.219/2011, whereby the revision petition filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 72 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 read with Section 187 of Delhi Reforms Act, 1954 (in short DLR Act) has been dismissed.2. Also assailed the order dated 17th March, 2003, passed by the Revenue Assistant, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, and order dated 30th June, 2011, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, (South West), Delhi.3. The facts of the case are that proceedings under Section 81 of DLR Act were initiated by SDM/RA/Vasant Vihar o...
Tag this Judgment!Government of Nct Delhi and ors. Vs. Narender Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2014
$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Decided on:05. 11.2014 W.P.(C) 1378/2014, C.M. NO.2879/2014 GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI AND ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat with Ms. Latika Chaudhary and Ms. Gunjan Bansal, Advocates. Versus NARENDER SINGH ..... Respondents Through: Sh. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 29.11.2011 in O.A. No.4117/2010 and the order of 16.01.2004 preferred by the applicants/respondents.2. The applicant respondent was redeployed in the GNCTD on account of the closure of the Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation (DSIDC), an autonomous GNCTD public sector unit. He was initially appointed on 01.01.1980 in W.P.(C) 1378/2014 Page 1 the DSIDC and was subsequently transferred to the Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (DSMDC) in...
Tag this Judgment!Heineken Asia Pacific Pte Ltd Vs. Surjeet Lal 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) 3318/2014 HEINEKEN ASIA PACIFIC PTE LTD ..... Plaintiff Through Mr.Amit Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Peeyoosh Kalra, Mr. C.A. Brijesh, Mr.J.V. Abhey and Ms. Ritu Jain, Advs. versus SURJEET LAL AND ORS Through ..... Defendants None CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral) I.A. No.21436/2014 This is an application filed by the plaintiff under 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.21437/2014 This is an application filed by the plaintiff 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 to just exceptions. The applic...
Tag this Judgment!Jahangir @ Ikka @ Ibrahim Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: October 31, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: November 05, 2014 % + CRL.A. 1504/2013 JAHANGIR @ IKKA @ IBRAHIM ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.M.L.Yadav, Adv. versus STATE + ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP for State. CRL.A. 1615/2013 MD. KAREEM @ RAHUL Represented by: ..... Appellant Ms.Inderjeet Sidhu Adv. alongwith Shruti Tiwari, Adv. versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP for State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. Jahangir @ Ikka @ Ibrahim and Md.Karim @ Rahul challenge the impugned judgment dated July 25, 2012 convicting them for offences punishable under Sections 395/397/34 IPC and the order on sentence dated August 09, 2012 whereby Jahangir @ Ikka has been directed to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of `10,000/- for offence punishable under Section 395 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Matloob Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.2463/2006 S.M. MATLOOB Through: .. Petitioner/ Applicant Petitioner in person. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: .. Respondents Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Ms. Rajul Jain, Adv. for UOI. CORAM:HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW ORDER % 05.11.2014 CM No.16228/2014 (of the petitioner u/S151CPC) 1. The aforesaid writ petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) with allegations of corruption prevailing in the Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR).2. The petition was disposed of vide order dated 5th July, 2006 noting that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was investigating and inquiring into the allegations and by directing the CBI to continue the investigation and inquiry and bring the same to a logical conclusion and by further directing that on conclusion of investigation, necessary action in terms of findings be taken by the competent authority. Liberty was also given to the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeev Chaudhary Vs. Baldev Raj Wasan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:5. h November, 2014 + RSA3202014 RAJEEV CHAUDHARY Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Ruchi Munjal, Advocate versus BALDEV RAJ WASAN Through: ..... Respondent Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (Oral) C.M.No.18087/2014 (u/S151CPC) For reasons stated in the application, delay of 06 days in re-filing the accompanying appeal is condoned. Application is disposed of. C.M.No.18086/2014 (u/S151CPC) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.320/2014 & C.M.No.18085/2014 (for stay) In this appeal, the concurrent findings returned by both the courts below are that on the basis of admission made by appellant, respondent is entitled to a decree for possession of suit property. The factual background of this case already stands noted in the RSA3202014 Page 1 impugned judgment and needs no reproduction. At the hearing of this appeal, it was submitted by learned counsel for appellant that the decree for the whole of the propert...
Tag this Judgment!Tarun Kaushik Vs. Seema Kaushik
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:5. h November, 2014 + CM(M) 965/2013 & C.M.APPLN.14617/2013 TARUN KAUSHIK Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate versus SEEMA KAUSHIK Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Harish Kumar, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (Oral) Impugned order of 11th March, 2013 grants interim maintenance at the rate of `7,000/- per month to respondent in an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The factual background of this case already stands noted in the impugned judgment and needs no reproduction. At the hearing of this petition, it was vehemently submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that respondent was working in VLCC (Vandana Luthra Curls and Curves) and is a post-graduate and is capable of earning and this aspect has been ignored by the concerned Family Court and therefore, impugned order deserves to be set aside. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order and the material on record,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 125
- 126
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- Next ›
- Last »