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.
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs. Fujitshu India Private Limited a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:13. 10.2014 Judgment delivered on:25. 11.2014 % + OMP No.492/2013 MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED ..... Petitioner Versus FUJITSHU INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vivek Malik and Mr. S. Dubey, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pradeep Nayak, Mr. Khalid Arshad, Mr. Abhishek Bansal and Mr. Ishwer Upneja, Advocates CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.1. The challenge by way of the present petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act) is to the award dated 17.12.2002. 1.1 Before I proceed further, it may be relevant to note, at the very outset that the disputes between the parties, essentially, revolved around a settlement dated 13.4.2006, entered into between the parties. While, the petitioner here...
VirgIn Enterprises Ltd. and Anr. Vs. VirgIn Paradise Airlines Training ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :3. d NOVEMBER, 2014 DECIDED ON :25. h NOVEMBER, 2014 + CS (OS) 734/2013 VIRGIN ENTERPRISES LTD. & ANR. Through : ..... Plaintiffs Mr.Amitabha Sen, Advocate with Ms.Malyashree Sridharan & Mr.Nihit Nagpal, Advocates. VERSUS VIRGIN PARADISE AIRLINES TRAINING PVT. LTD. ..... Defendant Through : None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. The plaintiffs have instituted the present suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from infringing their trademark and passing off their services as that of his. Briefly stated, the facts set up in the plaint are as under :2. The plaintiff No.1 Virgin Enterprises Limited is a member of the Virgin Group of Companies. It was originally established by Sir Richard Branson in 1970. It is a company incorporated in England and Wales and is a member of the Group of Companies collectively known as the Virgin Group of Companies. Plaintiff No.2 Virgin Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. having i...
Ramesh Vs. Mool Chand and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
$~A-12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:25. h November 2014. % + MAC.APP. 1242/2012 RAMESH Through ..... Appellant Mr.Sanjeev Srivastava, Advocate. versus MOOL CHAND & ORS Through ..... Respondents Ms.Kirti Sethi, Mr.J.P.N.Shahi, Advocates for R-4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH ORDER2511.2014 % 1. By the present appeal the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation as awarded by the award dated 13.02.2012.2. The brief facts which led to the filing of the claim petition and the present appeal are that on 19.07.2004, the appellant was standing on a bus stop at Ashram. He was hit by a tractor said to be driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and he suffered injuries.3. Based on the evidence on record the tribunal concluded that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1.4. On compensation, the tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,05,597/- as follows:- On account of medical expenses Loss...
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 ...
Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. State and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:19. h November 2014 Decision on:25. h November 2014 CRL.A. No.147 of 2009 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sharat Kapoor, Ms. Shilpa Dewan and Mr. Sunny Verma, Advocates. versus STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Isha Khanna, APP for State. Mr. D.S. Kohli with Mr. Aashneet Singh Anand, Advocates for Respondent No.2. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT2511.2014 1. This appeal by the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) is against the impugned judgment dated 6th August 2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) in Complaint Case No.199 of 2003 acquitting the Respondent No.2 of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). The complaint 2. In its complaint before the learned MM, SAIL stated that M/s. Capital Industries, Respondent No.3 partnership firm, of which Mr. Dinesh Vij, (Respondent No.2 herein) and Mr. Pra...
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...
Commissioner of Income Tax-Vi Vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
$~20 & 21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:25. h November, 2014 + ITA1152014 & 119/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI Through ..... Appellant Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel versus TAIKISHA ENGINEERING INDIA LTD Through ..... Respondent Mr. K.R.Manjani, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.(Oral) These two appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act for short) relate to assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10.2. The issue raised by the Revenue in these appeals pertains to Section 14A of the Act and Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Rules for short) and disallowance of expenditure relating to exempt income.3. For the assessment year 2008-09, the respondent assessee had filed return declaring total taxable income of Rs.31,14,68,297/- and exempt income of Rs.2,46,81,747/-. The assessee had voluntarily disallowed expenditure of Rs.1,15,000/- under Section ...
Sakshi Rawal and Ors. Vs. Pankaj Rawal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Order delivered on: November 25, 2014 I.P.A. No.1/2014 & I.A. No.302/2014 SAKSHI RAWAL & ORS Through ..... Petitioners Mr.Rajiv Bajaj, Adv. versus PANKAJ RAWAL Through ..... Respondent Mr.Mohit Auluck, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioners filed the present petition under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act for grant of maintenance.2. Petitioner No.1 is the wife of the respondent while petitioners No.2 and 3 are their daughters, both of them are minor. It is stated by the petitioner No.1 that the petitioners do not have their individual source of income and it is difficult for them to survive.3. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner No.1 was forced to leave the matrimonial home alongwith petitioners No.2 and 3 after facing atrocities. On various occasions she was taunted for not bringing sufficient dowry and for belonging to lower background. However, s...
Aabhas Arora Vs. The State and Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5294/2014 AABHAS ARORA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Shiv Pande and Mr. Vadudhara Nagrath, Advocates with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE & ANR Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State with HC Jagdish Singh PS Adarsh Nagar. Complainant in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral) Crl. M.A. 18065/2014 (for exemption) Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed off. CRL.M.C. 5294/2014 and Crl. M.A. 18064/2014 (for stay) 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.374/2014 registered under Sections 287/337 IPC at Police Station Adarsh Nagar on 4th June, 2014 on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.2. Issue notice. Mr. Amit Ahlawat, Additional Public Prosecutor enters appearance and accepts notice on behalf of the State/res...
Manoj Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :20. 11.2014 Pronounced on :25. 11.2014 % + CRL.A. 23/2006 MANOJ Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advocate. versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Neeraj Kumar Singh, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRATIBHA RANI, J.1. The Appellant Manoj has been convicted by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No.33/2002 in FIR No.361/2002 under Sections 376/452/506/342/323 IPC, PS Hauz Khas for committing the offence punishable under Sections 451/342/376/506 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.500 and in default to undergo SI for one week for committing the offence punishable under Section 451 IPC, to undergo RI for six month for committing the offence punishable under Section 342 IPC, to undergo RI for seven years with fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to undergo SI for six months for committing the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and to undergo RI for two...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »