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.
Sanjay and ors Vs. the State and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2014
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4352/2014 SANJAY & ORS Through ..... Petitioners Mr. R. P. Bhardwaj, Advocate with petitioners. versus THE STATE & ANR ..... Respondent Through Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor. A.S.I. A. Kumar. Ms.Bharti Malik, Advocate with complainant. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(ORAL) CRL.M.C. 4352/2014 & Crl.M.A. No.14934/2014 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.274/2007, registered under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC at police station Adarsh Nagar on 19.05.2007, on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.2. Issue notice. Ms. Nishi Jain, APP for the State and Ms. Bharti Malik, Advocate for the second respondent / complainant, enter appearance and accept notice. The complainant, who is present in person, is also identified by the Investigating Officer, ASI A. Kumar.3. It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged at the inst...
Manish Gupta Vs. State and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2014
$~53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5339/2014 MANISH GUPTA Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Kamal Katyan, Advocate with petitioner. versus STATE & ANR Through ..... Respondents Mr. Amit Ahlawat, Additional Public Prosecutor. ASI Saroj Bala. Mr. S. D. Dixit, Advocate with respondent No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.A. No.18188/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application is disposed off. Crl.M.C. No.5339/2014 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.335/2013 registered under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC on 26.07.2013 at police station Maurya Enclave, on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.2. Issue notice. Mr. Amit Ahlawat, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Mr. S.D. Dixit, Advocate for Respondent No.2/complainant, enter appearance and accept notice. The second respondent, Ms. Ruchika Gupta, who is pr...
Ashok Solomon Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2014
$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:24. 11.2014 W.P.(C) 4461/2014 ASHOK SOLOMON .... Petitioner versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr B.S. Maan and Mr Vishal Maan, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr Siddharth Panda, Advocate for R-1 & R-2 Mr Arjun Pant, Advocate for R-3 CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. The petitioner seeks 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 acquisition proceeding, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition, ought to be deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.2. The Award under the Land Acquisition Act, 18...
icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dijo Davis and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2014
$~A-10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Decision:24. 11.2014 MAC.APP. 155/2012 ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through Ms.Suman Bagga and Mr.Saral Chaturvedi, Advocates. versus DIJO DAVIS & ORS. Through ..... Respondents Mr.S.N.Parashar, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(Oral) CM No.2035/2014 (delay in re-filing) This is an application for condonaton of delay of 351 days in re-filing of the appeal. It is urged that certain objections were raised by the Registry and cross-objections were taken back by the counsel to remove the same but the cross-objections got misplaced in the office of the counsel for the appellant. This was found in December 2013 and the cross-objections were thereafter refiled. Hence, it is urged that the delay of 351 days in re-filing of the present cross-objections may be condoned. Subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- which will be payable by respondent No.1 to the Delhi High Court Bar...
ishwar Dayal Kansal Vs. Motion Pictures Association
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order delivered on:24. h November, 2014 % + CS(OS) No.1954/2011 ISHWAR DAYAL KANSAL Through ..... Plaintiff Plaintiff in person versus MOTION PICTURES ASSOCIATION .....Defendant Through Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rajender Agarwal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral) 1. This is a suit for specific performance, declaration and permanent and mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. The issues in the matter were framed vide order dated 28th April, 2014. Vide the same order it was also directed that issues No.1 and 2 be treated as preliminary issues.2. Submissions have been made by both the sides on issue No.2 which is whether the suit claim is within time?.3. It is the case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint that the plaintiff in December, 1999 made an offer to the defendant to purchase the suit property, pursuant to the advertisements by the defendant in the newspapers ...
Commissioner of Income Tax-21 Vs. Mr. Sarkar Nath Oberoi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: November 24, 2014 + ITA No.720/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21 ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Rohit Madan,Sr.Standing Counsel with Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate versus MR. SARKAR NATH OBEROI ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.(Oral) 1. The first issue raised in the present appeal relates to additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the tax deducted at source was deposited with the government after the end of the relevant Assessment Year. It is accepted by revenue that the tax deducted at source was deposited before the due date of the filing of the return. In view of this admitted factual position, the question has to be decided against the appellant revenue in view of the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Naresh Kumar, [2014]. 362 ITR256(Delhi), wherein, it...
Manoj Saxena Vs. Ashok Goel and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % CM(M) No.295/2014 24th November , 2014 MANOJ SAXENA Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Amitabh Narayan, Adv. VERSUS ASHOK GOEL & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM No.19234/2014 (preponing of date by the petitioner) Application for preponement is allowed. CM stands disposed of. The next date i.e 16.12.2014 stands cancelled. CM(M) No.295/2014 1. The petitioner, who is the defendant no.2(ii) in the suit, has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order of the trial court dated 27.11.2013 by which the trial court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for amendment of the written statement to add a new para 5A as under:5A. That the notice dated 13th August, 1969 is illegal as it has not been issued on behalf of the HUF of...
Mamchand and Anr Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2014
$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO3732014 Decided on 21st November, 2014 MAMCHAND & ANR Through ..... Appellants :Mr. Yogesh Saroop and Mr. B.K. Roy, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA Through ..... Respondent : None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK A.K.PATHAK, J.(ORAL) CM Appl. No.19191/2014 (for condonation of delay) 28 days delay in re-filing is condoned. Application is disposed of. CM Appl. No.19190/2014 (for condonation of delay) 182 days delay in filing is condoned. Application is disposed of. FAO No.373/2014 1. Appellants filed a claim application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (Tribunal) seeking compensation of `8,00,000/- on account of death of late Shri Kaushal in an untoward incident, which allegedly took place on 8th January, 2012 near Container Depot of Tugalakabad, relating to a train. After trial, Tribunal has dismissed the claim application.2. That is how appellants ar...
Union of India and Ors. Vs. Satpal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision:21. 11.2014 % W.P. (C) 5686/2014 C.M. Nos.14056-14057/2014 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. R.V. Sinha, Mr. R.N. Singh and Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates versus SATPAL Through: ..... Respondent Mr. K.R. Chawla, Advocate AND % W.P.(C) 5762/2014 C.M. Nos.14205-14206/2014 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. R.V. Sinha, Mr. R.N. Singh and Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates versus SATPAL SINGH Through: ..... Respondent Mr. K.R. Chawla, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. With the consent of the parties, both the petitions have been heard together. The respondent/applicant had challenged his order of transfer before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereafter referred to as the CAT) and sought appropriate directions from the Central Government.2. By the order dated 22nd November, 2013, which is impugned in the present wri...
Narender Pal Singh Vs. Director of Education and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:21. 11.2014 W.P.(C) 6759/2013 & CM No.14672/2013 NARENDER PAL SINGH ..... Petitioner versus DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Dr Vijendra Mahndiyan and Ms Pallavi Awasthi. For the Respondents : Mr Amiet Andlay for R1- & R-2. Mr B.B. Gupta with Mr Sarthak Ghonkrokta and Mr Udyan Srivastava for R-3 CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner impugns the decision of the Management Committee of respondent No.3, rejecting the petitioners request for re-employment after his superannuation as a Vice-Principal, which was communicated to him by an order dated 14.10.2013 (hereafter the impugned order). The petitioner also impugns respondent No.3s decision of 27.05.2013, rejecting the petitioners request for being re-employed as a Vice-Principal and further directing the petitioner to hand over the charge to another teacher.2. Accor...
- ‹ Prev
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- Next ›
- Last »