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.
Shri Sai Bhakta Samaj Thr. Its Managing Committee Vs. Sh. Kailash Chan ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.37/2014 20th November, 2014 % SHRI SAI BHAKTA SAMAJ THR. ITS MANAGING COMMITTEE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kunal Kalra, Adv. VERSUS SH. KAILASH CHANDER VERMA & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: Mr.Prannoy Dey and Mr. Vikalp Mudgal, Adv. for R-2 and 3. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. Petitioner, who is the defendant no.2 in the suit, impugns the consent order of the trial court dated 10.10.2013 which appoints an Administrator.2. Once the impugned order is a consent order, the same cannot be challenged because it is a consent order. The principle contained in Section 96(3) read with Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) prevents challenge to a consent order.3. The relevant portion of the impugned order showing consent of the petitioner/defendant No.2 reads as under:.... I am of the view that some independent Administrator should be appointe...
M/S Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2014
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CM(M) 1030/2014 & C.M.Nos.19084/2014(Stay), 19085/2014 (Exemption) 20th November, 2014 % M/S ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. ......Petitioner Through: Mr.P.K.Rawal, Advocate. VERSUS M/S FEDERAL MOTORS PVT. LTD. Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA ...... Respondent To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. I fail to understand as to how certain litigants seek exercise of powers by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, especially noting that in fact the application under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) which was filed by the petitioner herein before the first appellate court (who is the respondent before the first appellate court), has been allowed and interim stay granted to the respondent herein (appellant in the first appeal) against the execution of the judgment of the trial court has been vacated.2. If an appellant has been directed to deposit the amo...
Ashok Kumar Vs. Harish Chander Sahni
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV.No.204/2014 & C.M.Nos.9752/2014 (Stay), 9753/2014 (Exemption) % 20th November, 2014 ASHOK KUMAR Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Pramod Gupta, Advocate. VERSUS HARISH CHANDER SAHNI Through: ...... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This rent control revision petition filed under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) impugns the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 19.11.2013 by which the ARC has dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant and has decreed the bonafide necessity eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act with respect to the suit/tenanted premises being two shops admeasuring 200 sq. ft. on the ground floor portion (garage portion) of the property bearing no.A-38, Ground Floor Vishal Enclave, New Delhi-27 as shown in red colour in...
Sh. Jasbir Singh Thr His Guardian Sh. Gurcharan Si Vs. Sh. S.K. Verma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2014
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CM(M) 1032/2014 & C.M.Nos.19091/2014 (Stay), 19092/2014 (Exemption) 20th November, 2014 % SH. JASBIR SINGH THR HIS GUARDIAN SH. GURCHARAN SINGH Through: ......Petitioner Mr.Atul Aggarwal, Advocate. VERSUS SH. S.K. VERMA ...... Respondent Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 19.11.2013 and the First Appellate Court/Rent Control Tribunal dated 21.4.2014; by which the defence of the petitioner/tenant has been struck off for non-compliance of the order with respect to payment of pendente lite rent.2. It is not disputed that an order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was passed by the court of the ARC on 24.1.2008 directing deposit of the pendente li...
Vikas Shukla Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELH Reserved on: October 16, 2014 Pronounced on: November 20, 2014 + Crl.M.C. No.2455/12 & Crl.M.A.No.8318/2014 ANKUR CHAWLA Through: .....Petitioner Mr.Kapil Sibal, Sr.Advocate, with Mr. Amit Mahajan, Mr.Amit Sharma, Ms.Kalyani Lal, Mr.Bhanoo Sood, Mr.Karan Kumar Gogna & Mr.Yogesh Kumar Dahiya, Advs. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS. ....Respondents Through: Mr.R.V.Sinha, Standing Counsel for CBI & Mr.Satyendera Kumar, Advocate Crl. Rev.P.385/2012 & Crl.M.A.No.8308/2014 VIKAS SHUKLA Through: .....Petitioner Mr.N.Hariharan Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Puneet Mittal, Adv. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS. ....Respondents Through: Mr.R.V.Sinha, Standing Counsel for CBI & Mr.Satyendera Kumar, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR % 1. JUDGMENT In the above captioned two petitions, the challenge is to common impugned order of 22nd May, 2012 vide which petitioners have been Crl.M.C.No.2455/2014 & Crl.Rev. P.No.385/2012 Page 1 cal...
Vijay Kumar Vs. State of the Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2014
$~16. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1715/2012 Date of Decision:20th November, 2013 % VIJAY KUMAR Through : ..... Petitioner Mr.S.B. Dandapani, Adv. versus STATE OF THE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Dayan Krishnan and Ms.Manvi Priya, Advs. for the State. SI Ashish S. Dalal, P.S. Kapashera. G.S. SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. With the consent of counsel for the parties the present writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal. The necessary facts to be noticed and as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner stands convicted by a judgment and order on sentence dated 18.8.2003. The petitioner is serving the sentence awarded and has served more than 11 years out of total sentence of life imprisonment. The petitioner has raised a plea of being a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence i.e. 6.10.2001. According to the petitioner, on the date of incident he was 16 year old. In support of his plea of juvenility the petitioner has filed ...
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Ram Niwas
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2014
$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:20. h November, 2014 % + W.P.(C) 1981/2011 BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. M.M. Sudan, Advocate. Versus RAM NIWAS ..... Respondent Represented by: None. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner Management has assailed the award dated 29.12.2005, whereby the learned Tribunal directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent/workman in service from 15.05.1999 along with continuity of service and full back wages.2. Mr. M.M. Sudan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Management submits that vide order dated 29.08.2000, the Central Government referred the claim of the respondent/workman with following reference:Whether the action of the management of Vibhagiya Tar Ghar merged with Telecom Department, Rampur, in regard to terminating the services of Shri Ram Niwas, Part Time Sweeper w.e.f. 16.05.1999 (sick 15.0...
National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Shri Msh Beig
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:20. 11.2014 W.P.(C) 272/2012 & CM No.561/2012 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD ..... Petitioner versus SHRI MSH BEIG ..... Respondent AND + W.P.(C) 332/2012 & CM No.720/2012 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD ..... Petitioner versus SHRI MSH BEIG ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Mr R.S. Mathur, Mr Dinesh Mathur & Ms Jyoti Daxtidar. For the Respondent : None. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioners are insurance companies and impugn an order dated 16.08.2011 passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter CIC) directing the Life Insurance Company as well as all four general insurance companies to disclose information in response to RTI applications as per the principles settled by the Supreme Court in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay: (2011) 8 SCC497 2. The principal grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned order directs disclosure of certain inf...
M/S. Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anand Kumar Bajaj and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :28. h OCTOBER, 2014 DECIDED ON :20. h NOVEMBER, 2014 + CS (OS) 1438/2011 & I.A.No.3178/2014 M/S. HINDUSTAN PENCILS PVT. LTD. Through : ..... Plaintiff Mr.Sushant Singh, Advocate with Mr.P.C.Arya, Advocate. VERSUS ANAND KUMAR BAJAJ & ORS. Through : ..... Defendants None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. M/s. Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, copyright, passing off, damages, delivery up, etc. against the defendants. The case set up by the plaintiff in the plaint is as under :2. The plaintiff earlier a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act has been converted into a private limited company. Mr.Manoj Dabke is the authorized signatory of the plaintiff to institute the present suit. It is further averred that the plaintiff is well established and is carrying on an ol...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Shri Msh Beig
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:20. 11.2014 W.P.(C) 272/2012 & CM No.561/2012 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD ..... Petitioner versus SHRI MSH BEIG ..... Respondent AND + W.P.(C) 332/2012 & CM No.720/2012 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD ..... Petitioner versus SHRI MSH BEIG ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Mr R.S. Mathur, Mr Dinesh Mathur & Ms Jyoti Daxtidar. For the Respondent : None. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioners are insurance companies and impugn an order dated 16.08.2011 passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter CIC) directing the Life Insurance Company as well as all four general insurance companies to disclose information in response to RTI applications as per the principles settled by the Supreme Court in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay: (2011) 8 SCC497 2. The principal grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned order directs disclosure of certain inf...
- ‹ Prev
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- Next ›
- Last »