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.
Raman Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-2014
$~25. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRIMINAL APPEAL No.274/1999 Date of decision:19. h November, 2014 RAMAN ..... Appellant Through Mr. Ankur Sood, Advocate. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL): This appeal against conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) was filed by two brothers, Raman Kumar and Arun Kumar. By order dated 20 th August, 2014, Arun Kumar was held to be a juvenile on the date of commission of offence and accordingly the benefit under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was granted. The said order records that Arun Kumar had stated that he would not like to contest his conviction but the order of sentence may be set aside and quashed. The appeal, therefore, filed by Arun Kumar stands disposed of vide order dated 20th August, 2014. Th...
M/S Polythene Bag Factory Vs. Assistant P.F. Commissioner
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:19. h November, 2014 % + W.P. (C) No.5362/2013 M/S POLYTHENE BAG FACTORY ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, Adv. Versus ASSISTANT P.F. COMMISSIONER ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 16.04.2010 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in ATA No.398 (5) of 2003.2. The petitioner has also assailed the recovery proceedings emanating therefrom.3. Mr.Anurag Ahluwalia, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that petitioner is an Establishment functioning in the Forest Department under the State of Gujarat. It has not applied voluntarily for the coverage of The Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Act, 1952 (for short EPF Act), but the EPF Authority / Respondent brought the petitioner / Establishment ...
Sh. Karanveer Singh Vs. Sh. Dharamveer Singh and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-2014
$~2 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CM(M) 604/2013 19th November, 2014 % SH. KARANVEER SINGH Through : ..... Petitioner Mr. Sandeep Agarwal, Adv. with Mr.M.K. Singh, Adv. versus SH. DHARAMVEER SINGH & ORS ..... Respondent Through : Dr. L.S. Chaudhary, Adv. with Mr.Ajay Chaudhary, Adv. 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 is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff impugning the order of the trial court dated 6 th May, 2013 by which the trial court has rejected an application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred as to the Act) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to lead additional evidence and also for cross examining the witness of the other side.2. Paras 2 and 4 of the impugned judgment are relevant and the same read as under:2 Ld. counsel for the plaintiff s...
Danish Infratech Private Limited Vs. Delhi Cantonment Board
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-2014
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:19. h November, 2014 % + W.P.(C) No.7139/2014 & CM No.16698/2014 (for stay). DANISH INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED .. Petitioner Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Raman Gandhi, Adv. Versus DELHI CANTONMENT BOARD .. Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Satyarthi, Adv. CORAM :HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, besides seeking declaration that Section 248(1) of the Cantonments Act, 2006 is unconstitutional and ultra vires the scheme of the Constitution of India, also seeks quashing of the notices dated 23rd September, 2013, 22nd January, 2014, 28th February, 2014 and 27th August, 2014 of the respondent under the said Section 248 (1) to the petitioner and order of restraining the respondent from proceeding to demolish the property of the petitioner as well as a direction to the respondent, to permit the petitioner to...
Ashok Kumar Vs. C.B.I./Acb
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 138 of 2010 Reserved on:10th November 2014 Decision on:19. h November 2014 SHABBAN Through: ..... Appellant Mr. R.M. Tufail, Mr. Anwar A. Khan and Mr. Farooq Choudhary, Advocates. Versus C.B.I./ACB Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Narender Mann, Spl. PP for CBI with Mr. Manoj Pant and Ms. Uttkarsha Kohli, Advocates. WITH CRL.A. 139 of 2010 JHARKHANDI RAI Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Anupama Sharma and Mr. Niraj Kumar Jha, Advocates. versus C.B.I./ACB Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Narender Mann, Spl. PP for CBI with Mr. Manoj Pant and Ms. Uttkarsha Kohli, Advocates. WITH CRL.A. 140 of 2010 MAHMOOD Through: Crl. A. No.138/2010 & connected matters ..... Appellant Mr. R.M. Tufail, Mr. Anwar A. Khan and Mr. Farooq versus C.B.I./ACB Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Narender Mann, Spl. PP for CBI with Mr. Manoj Pant and Ms. Uttkarsha Kohli, Advocates. WITH CRL.A. 141 of 2010 ASHOK KUMAR Through: ..... Appellant Mr. R.M. Tufail, Mr. Anwar A. Khan and Mr...
Singh Raj Vs. State and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-2014
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: November 19, 2014 + CRL.A. 50/2014 SINGH RAJ Represented by: STATE & ORS Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Dinkar Verma, Advocate versus ..... Respondents Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP Insp.Raman, SHO/PS Mehraulli SI Bijender Singh Mr.Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate for R2 and R-3 Mr.Sushil Kumar Jain, Advocate for R-4 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) Crl.M.A.No.50/2014 For the reasons stated in the application the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of. Crl.A.No.50/2014 1. Complainant is the appellant and his grievance is that respondents 2 to 4 have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326/34 IPC. He desires that the respondents should be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC.2. Learned counsel for the appellant urges that the impugned order dated January 21, 2013 would show that the l...
Mayank Pathak Vs. The State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-2014
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:19. h November, 2014 BAIL APPLN. 1947/2014 MAYANK PATHAK Through : ..... Petitioner Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Bhagat Sharma, Advocate along with the petitioner (in JC) versus THE STATE Through : ..... Respondent Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP for State Mr. Sunil K. Mittal and Mr. Anshul Mittal, Advocates for complainant CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. By virtue of this application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No.386/2013 u/s 498A/313/406/34 IPC registered with Police Station Rani Bagh, District North West.2. It is submitted by Sh. Ramesh Gupta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody for the last 90 days. The petitioner never raised any demand of dowry. The complainant used to pressurise the petitioner to purchase his own house in Delhi or to get the property bearing No.BP-143, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi transf...
Mahmood Vs. C.B.I.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 138 of 2010 Reserved on:10th November 2014 Decision on:19. h November 2014 SHABBAN Through: ..... Appellant Mr. R.M. Tufail, Mr. Anwar A. Khan and Mr. Farooq Choudhary, Advocates. Versus C.B.I./ACB Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Narender Mann, Spl. PP for CBI with Mr. Manoj Pant and Ms. Uttkarsha Kohli, Advocates. WITH CRL.A. 139 of 2010 JHARKHANDI RAI Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Anupama Sharma and Mr. Niraj Kumar Jha, Advocates. versus C.B.I./ACB Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Narender Mann, Spl. PP for CBI with Mr. Manoj Pant and Ms. Uttkarsha Kohli, Advocates. WITH CRL.A. 140 of 2010 MAHMOOD Through: Crl. A. No.138/2010 & connected matters ..... Appellant Mr. R.M. Tufail, Mr. Anwar A. Khan and Mr. Farooq versus C.B.I./ACB Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Narender Mann, Spl. PP for CBI with Mr. Manoj Pant and Ms. Uttkarsha Kohli, Advocates. WITH CRL.A. 141 of 2010 ASHOK KUMAR Through: ..... Appellant Mr. R.M. Tufail, Mr. Anwar A. Khan and Mr...
Shabban Vs. C.B.I./Acb
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 138 of 2010 Reserved on:10th November 2014 Decision on:19. h November 2014 SHABBAN Through: ..... Appellant Mr. R.M. Tufail, Mr. Anwar A. Khan and Mr. Farooq Choudhary, Advocates. Versus C.B.I./ACB Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Narender Mann, Spl. PP for CBI with Mr. Manoj Pant and Ms. Uttkarsha Kohli, Advocates. WITH CRL.A. 139 of 2010 JHARKHANDI RAI Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Anupama Sharma and Mr. Niraj Kumar Jha, Advocates. versus C.B.I./ACB Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Narender Mann, Spl. PP for CBI with Mr. Manoj Pant and Ms. Uttkarsha Kohli, Advocates. WITH CRL.A. 140 of 2010 MAHMOOD Through: Crl. A. No.138/2010 & connected matters ..... Appellant Mr. R.M. Tufail, Mr. Anwar A. Khan and Mr. Farooq versus C.B.I./ACB Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Narender Mann, Spl. PP for CBI with Mr. Manoj Pant and Ms. Uttkarsha Kohli, Advocates. WITH CRL.A. 141 of 2010 ASHOK KUMAR Through: ..... Appellant Mr. R.M. Tufail, Mr. Anwar A. Khan and Mr...
Baljit Singh Dahiya Vs. B.S.E.S.Rajdhani Power Ltd. and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + s W.P.(C) 672/2014 Decided on IN THE MATTER OF: BALJIT SINGH DAHIYA :19. 11.2014 ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Vimal Wadhawan, Advocate with petitioner in person versus B.S.E.S.RAJDHANI POWER LTD. & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. S.N.Choudhri, Ms.Shruti Choudhri & Mr.Varun Rajpal, Advocates for R-1 Ms.Meenakshi Midha and Mr.Siddhartha Nagpal, Advocates for R-2 CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition praying inter alia for issuance of directions to the respondent No.1/BSES RPL to fix his salary on the basic pay, equivalent to one Mr.D.K.Sharma, w.e.f. 1.1.1994, with all the consequential benefits.2. A counter affidavit was filed by the respondent No.1/BSES RPL wherein, it was averred that the present petition is a gross abuse of the process of law inasmuch as the petitioner who had availed of SVRS on 31.12.2003, has concealed material facts from the court. Learned counsel f...
- ‹ Prev
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- Next ›
- Last »