Delhi Court November 2014 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Dada Maldev GramIn Vikas Samiti Village Daryapur K Vs. Govt. of Nct of ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2014
$~25. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.8240/2014 DADA MALDEV GRAMIN VIKAS SAMITI VILLAGE DARYAPUR KALAN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Sharma with Ms. Dezy Gaur, Mr. S.K. Rout, Mr. Pramod Kumar and Mr. Syed Mohd. Mehdi, Advs. Versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, Adv. for GNCTD. CORAM :HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW ORDER % 26.11.2014 CM No.19157/2014 (for condonation of 24 days delay in re-filing).1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in re-filing the petition is condoned. W.P.(C) No.8240/2014.2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India flags the issue, undoubtedly of public importance, of the respondent i.e. the Government of NCT of Delhi inspite of the newly constructed building of Updesh Kaur Sarvadaya Kanya Vidalaya situated at Village Daryapur Kalan having been found to be unsafe owing to the poor quality of construction thereof, from time to time ...
Dr Manoj Kumar Vimal and anr. Vs. Mukhtyari Devi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: November 26, 2014 + RSA3602014 & C.M. Nos.19463-64-65/2014 DR MANOJ KUMAR VIMAL & ANR. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. S.P. Kalra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate versus MUKHTYARI DEVI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Krishan Kumar, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % Caveat No.1046/2014 Respondents are represented through counsel. Caveat stands discharged. C.M. No.19464/2014 Allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA3602014 & C.M. Nos.19463/2014 (for stay) & C.M. No.19465/2014 (for directions) Appellants are the son and daughter-in-law of respondents and are stated to be mere licensee in the suit property, whose absolute owners are respondents. Whether the suit for mandatory injunction would lie to compel appellants to vacate the suit property or a regular suit for possession has to be filed after paying the court fee at the market value of RSA NO.360/2014 Page 1 the property?....
Brig (Retd.) M.M. Sharma Frgs Vs. Lt. Gen. Depinder Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2014
$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgement delivered on:26. 11.2014 + O.M.P. 741/2013 BRIG (RETD.) M.M. SHARMA FRGS ..... Petitioner versus LT. GEN. DEPINDER SINGH ..... Respondent Advocates appeared in this case: For the petitioner: Mr A.B. Pandey, Advocate For the respondent: Dr. Roxna Swamy, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J1 The petitioner herein is the sole proprietor of a concern going by the name of Trishul Publications. The predecessor-in-interest of this proprietorship concern is another concern, which went by the name of Dattatreya Prakashan. 1.1 The disputes between the parties herein arose out of the publication agreement executed between them, which was entered between them in September, 1991. The said publication agreement, broadly, defines the rights of the parties herein with respect to a book written by the respondent, entitled IPKF In Sri Lanka. 1.2 The petitioner (i.e., the original claimant), was aggrieved by the fa...
Satish Kumar Nagpal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.8195/2014 & CM No.19073/2014 (for directions) & CM No.19074/2014 (for exemption). SATISH KUMAR NAGPAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. P. Sureshan, Adv. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC for R-1&2 with Mr. Jitender Singh, Section Officer, Deptt. Of Horticulture, CPWD, Ministry of Urban Development. Mr. Digvijay Rai with Mr. Ratish Kumar, Advs. for R-4. Ms. Zubeda Begum, St. Counsel (GNCTD) with Ms. Sana Ansari, Adv. for GNCTD. CORAM :HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW % 1. ORDER2611.2014 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed as a Public Interest Litigation, seeks directions, (i) to the Ministry of Urban Development & Poverty Alleviation and the Dy. Director General (Horticulture), (a) to take proper maintenance and care of the Sadiq Nagar Sports Complex by putting proper boundary walls and separating the same from the adjacent Ce...
Smt. Draupadi Devi (Deceased Through Lrs) Vs. Mr. Gulshan Kumar Anand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2014
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RC. REV.No.199/2014 26th November, 2014 % SMT. DRAUPADI DEVI (DECEASED THROUGH LRs) ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. S. R. Mehta, Advoctae. Versus MR. GULSHAN KUMAR ANAND Through: ..... Respondent Mr. J.S. Bakshi, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) Review Petition No.513/2014 1. The petitioner/tenant by this review petition seeks review of the judgment dated 9.9.2014 by which the rent control revision petition was dismissed.2. The admitted position which emerges on record is that an SLP was filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 9.9.2014 and the SLP being SLP no.26848/2014 was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide its Taken on board. We find no merit in the special leave petition. It is dismissed accordingly. However, on a request of learned counsel for the petitioners, time to vacate the premises is extended till 31st March, 2015 subject to petiti...
Deepak Kumar Vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2014
$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of decision:26. 11.2014 MAC.APP. 1012/2012 DEEPAK KUMAR Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate versus IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.& ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH (ORAL) 1. By the present appeal the appellant seeks enhancement of the compensation amount granted as per award dated 03.04.2012.2. The brief facts giving rise to the claim petition before the Tribunal are that the deceased namely Rajmani was going on a motorcycle on 03.10.2010 which was driven by Mr. Deepak Kumar, the appellant. When they reached at Ring Road, Sarojini Nagar Flyover, opposite CNG station, one TSR which was being driven by respondent no.2 in a rash, careless and negligent manner and at very high, fast and violent speed took a sharp turn without giving any indication & hit the motorcycle on which the deceased was a pillion rider.3. Based on the evi...
Punjab National Bank Vs. Sh. Gian Prakash and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 1051/2014 26th November, 2014 % PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Through: ......Petitioner Mr.Sanjeev Narula with Mr.Ajay Kalra, Advocates. VERSUS SH. GIAN PRAKASH & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Mr.Dheeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate for R- 1 to 3 with R-2 in person. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) Caveat No.1050/2014 Since appearance has been put in on behalf of the respondents/caveators, caveat stands discharged. CM(M) 1051/2014 & C.M.Nos.19494/2014 (Stay),19495/2014 (Exemption) 1. Some officers of public sector banks in this country such as of the petitioner/Punjab National Bank (in short the Bank) in this case, it is seen that they can go to any extent in causing a perverse reading of the applicable circulars and guidelines issued by the Bank itself. Why this is done is not understood by this Court, but, the same surely besides causing a grave harassment to the customers...
Ms. Kusum Rani Vs. Smt. Uma Vati
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC. REV.Nos.379/2014 & 381/2014 26th November, 2014 % 1. RC. REV. No.379/2014 MS. KUSUM RANI Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Shiv Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Soumya Kumar, Advocate. Versus SMT. UMA VATI ..... Respondent Through:2. RC. REV. No.381/2014 SH. MOTI RAM Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate with Mr. Shiv Gupta, Advocate. Versus SMT. UMA VATI ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. Both these petitions can be disposed of by this common judgment inasmuch as the impugned judgment of the Rent Controller is same in both the cases. The landlady being the respondent is same in both the cases and the need which has been projected for eviction of the petitioners/tenants is the same viz of opening of a computer institute by both her sons in the entire ground floor of the premises ...
Dtc Vs. Rattan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: November 25, 2014 + W.P.(C) No.3635/2011 DTC Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Sarfaraz Khan, Advocate. Versus RATTAN LAL Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.G.S.Charya, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.1. The present petition is directed against the award dated 20.08.2010 passed by the learned Labour Court in ID No.347/2004, whereby while setting aside the order of dismissal, the learned Tribunal awarded penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and the workman was reinstated with continuity of service, but without back wages.2. As per the statement of claim filed by the respondent/workman, it is stated that he had been working with the petitioner Management on the post of Conductor and never gave a chance to complaint. The Management was satisfied with his work. During the period from 30.01.2003 to 10.07.2003, his wife was ill and he could not resume his duty, howeve...
J.K. JaIn Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:25. 11.2014 W.P.(C) 4222/2014 J.K. JAIN ..... Petitioner versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Pranav Kr. Jha and Mr Ishan Jain. For the Respondents : Ms Ruchi Sindhwani, ASC GNCTD with Ms Bandana Shukla, Ms Megha Bhandana with Ms Juhi Agarwal, Dy. Edu. Officer. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J (ORAL) 1. The petitioners grievance is that a sum of `1,37,914.34/- incurred by the petitioner for treatment of his wife at Max Super Speciality Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi has not been reimbursed by the respondents.2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are as under:- 2.1 The petitioner was employed as a Lecturer (Sanskrit) at Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya (SBV), Delhi Cantt, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and has superannuated from services. Concededly, the petitioner is DGEHS card holder and therefore his spouse was also a beneficiary ...
- ‹ Prev
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- Next ›
- Last »