Delhi Court November 2014 Judgments
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...
Tag this Judgment!Amarjit Singh and anr Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
$~18(III) * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:25. 11.2014 W.P.(C) 3083/2014 & CM64712014 AMARJIT SINGH AND ANR .... Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Mr Ajay Sharma For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi for the Respondent/L&B and LAC. Mr Arun Birbal with Mr Sanjay Singh for DDA. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. The counter affidavit handed over by Mr Yeeshu Jain on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 3 is taken on record. The petitioners do not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit.2. The petitioners seek the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 2013 Act) which came into effect on 01.01.2014. A declaration is sought to the effect that the acq...
Tag this Judgment!Sh Mukand Swarup Vs. Smt Manisha Swarup
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: November 25, 2014 + FAO4212013 & C.M.No.17985/2013 SH MUKAND SWARUP Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Jatin Sehgal & Mr. Harish Malik, Advocates versus SMT MANISHA SWARUP Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Ajay Kumar Chopra, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT ORAL % Impugned judgment of 30th September, 2013 grants permanent custody of children Master Shubham, aged about eleven years and Kumari Radhika, aged about fourteen years to respondent-wife on application under Section 25 of The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The facts of this case find mention in the impugned judgment and needs no reiteration. It would suffice to note that parties got married on 31st October, 1998 and their marriage ran into rough weather resulting in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and filing of application under this enactment. Whether it would be in the welfare and interest of children to handover...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil Verma Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:25. h November, 2014 + Crl.M.B.10242/2014 & Crl. M.A. 17154/2014 in CRL.A. 916/2013 SUSHIL VERMA Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Pavan Narang and Ms. Vasundhara, Chauhan, Advocates versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent Through: Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocate for Mr. R.V. Sinha, Standing Counsel for CBI Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, Mr. S. Sethi, Advocate for SBBJ CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.Crl. M.B. No.10242/2014 1. This is an application moved by the appellant u/s 389 r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal in FIR No.RC-4(E)/2006/EOW-I/CBI/New Delhi u/s 120 B IPC and Section 13(2)/13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 and Section 420/471 IPC.2. It is submitted that the appellant has been sentenced to undergo (i) rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.5000/- in default one month simple imprisonment for offence punishable u/s...
Tag this Judgment!Mahajan Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
57 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:25. 11.2014 W.P.(C) 6775/2014 & CM160282014 MAHAJAN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Vishal Maan. For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi for LAC/L&B. Mr Manu Mridul, Mr Rajat Agnihotri and Ms Ragini for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. The counter affidavit handed over by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file a rejoinder affidavit.2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 2013 Act) which came into effect on 01.01...
Tag this Judgment!Pritam Singh @ Pritam and anr Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
52 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:25. 11.2014 W.P.(C) 6714/2014 & CM159152014 PRITAM SINGH @ PRITAM AND ANR ..... Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Mr N.S.Vasisht, Mr Vishal Singh, Ms Jyoti Kataria and Mr M.P.Bhargawa. For the Respondents : Mr Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr T.P.Singh for UOI. Mr Yeeshu Jain, Ms Jyoti Tyagi and Mr Siddharth Panda for LAC/L&B. Ms Mrinalini Sen Gupta, Ms Mrinmoi Chatterjee and Ms Ruhi Chopra, for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. The counter affidavit handed over by the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit.2. The petitioners seek the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitat...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8137/2014 and CM APPL. 18974/2014 Decided on:25. 11.2014 IN THE MATTERS OF : MANOJ KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Aviral Dhirendra, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Suparna Srivastava, CGSC CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for quashing and setting aside the show cause notice dated 10.06.2013 issued by the Regional Director (NR) of the respondent No.2/Staff Selection Commission (in short SSC), whereunder he was informed that on failure to show cause, his candidature in the Combined Recruitment for Assistant Grade III in General, Depot, Technical and Accounts Cadre and Hindi Posts (AG-II) in the Examination, 2012 held for respondent No.3/FCI , would be cancelled and he would be debarred for a period of five years from the Commissions examinations.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that o...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Mohd. Abid Vs. Smt. Kausar Parveen
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 1271/2013 & CM No.18920/13 (stay) 25th November, 2014 % SH. MOHD. ABID Through: ......Petitioner Mr. R.M Bagai, Mr. Yasin and Ms. Damini Khurana, Advocates. VERSUS SMT. KAUSAR PARVEEN Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Farahim Khan, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner/tenant impugning the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the Additional Rent Controller dated 22.11.2012 and the Additional Rent Control Tribunal dated 8.10.2013; by which the courts below have decreed the eviction petition filed by the respondent/landlady under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the DRC Act) on account of non-payment of rent.2. At the outset, I must note that the present/ subject eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act was a se...
Tag this Judgment!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...
Tag this Judgment!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 ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- Next ›
- Last »