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.
Kanchan Kapoor and Ors. Vs. Sarwan Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RCR No.338/2011 & CM Nos. 15924/2011 (stay) 17th November, 2014 % KANCHAN KAPOOR & ORS. Through: ......Petitioners Mr. J.S.Vohra, Adv. VERSUS SARWAN KUMAR Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Vijay K. Gupta, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This rent control revision petition is filed under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the DRC Act) impugning the judgment of the of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 4.6.2011 which has dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the petitioners/tenants and has decreed the bonafide necessity eviction petition filed by the respondent/landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act with respect to the tenanted premises being two rooms, store, kitchen, bathroom, W.C on the ground floor together with one mezzanine room between ground and first floor above the garage of the property bearing N...
Mohan Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: November 11, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: November 17, 2014 % + CRL.A. 297/2014 VICKY Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate with Mr.Puneet Mahendru and Mr.Sahil Malik, Advocates versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP CRL.A. 299/2014 MOHAN LAL Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate with Mr.Puneet Mahendru and Mr.Sahil Malik, Advocates versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP CRL.A. 1303/2014 STATE Represented by: ..... Appellant Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for versus BUNTY @ RAJIV & ANR Represented by: CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters ..... Respondents Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate with Mr.Puneet Mahendru and Mr.Sahil CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARDEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PARDEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Appellants Mohan Lal and his son Vicky do not dispute that an incident took place at around 10:30 PM on July 30, 2011 involving the...
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs. M/S Cimmco Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
$-26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + EFA(OS) 27/2014 Date of decision :17. h November, 2014 % MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Kalra, Advocate. versus M/S CIMMCO LIMITED Through: ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA GITA MITTAL, J.(Oral) CM187712014 (exemption) Allowed, subject to just exceptions. CM187702014 (delay) For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. This application is allowed. EFA(OS) 27/2014 and CM187692014 (stay) 1. It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the appellant that the record necessary for adjudication of the present appeal which is relied upon in support by the appellant has been filed. We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and also perused the available record.2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant primarily challenging the direction...
Parvindar Singh Vs. M/S Senbo Engineering Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order delivered on:17. h November, 2014 % + CS(OS) No.1693/2012 & I.A. No.8692/2013 PARVINDAR SINGH ..... Plaintiff Through Mr. Ashish Pratap Singh, Adv. versus M/S SENBO ENGINEERING LTD ....Defendant Through Mr. Aloke Kr. Bhattacharya, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.35,58,257/- along with pendent lite and future interest against the defendant.2. It is stated that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of civil construction doing construction in the name of S.P.Construction and Shekhawat Construction as proprietorship concerns. The defendant is engaged in the business of civil construction, doing construction works for Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC).3. Defendant was served with summons on 18th August, 2012. However, the defendant did not file the written statement and consequently, the right to file the written statement was closed vide order dated 21s...
Dharambir Sharma and Anr Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: November 13, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: November 17, 2014 % + CRL.A. 1013/2014 DHARAMBIR SHARMA & ANR Represented by: ..... Appellants Mr.S.K.Goyal, Advocate. versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP for the State with Inspector Indraj Singh, PS Adarsh Nagar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. Appellants Dharambir Sharma and Rakesh Sharma who are father and son challenge the impugned judgment dated April 29, 2014 convicting them for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC and 307/34 IPC and directing them to undergo imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC with a fine of `50,000/- and Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of `15,000/- for offence punishable under Sections 307/34 IPC vide the impugned order dated April 30, 2014.2. Assailing the judgment learned counsel for the ap...
Shri Mam Chand Since Deceased Now Represented by H Vs. Sat NaraIn Gupt ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:17. 11.2014 W.P.(C) 6874/2012 & CM No.17894/2012 SHRI MAM CHAND SINCE DECEASED NOW REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS MRS JAI RANI GUPTA ..... Petitioner versus SAT NARAIN GUPTA ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Rajesh Kumar. For the Respondent : Mr Satish Kumar. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner impugns an order dated 03.04.2012 of the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereafter referred to as the impugned order). By the impugned order, the Competent Authority has allowed the application of the respondent under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereafter the Act) to initiate the proceedings for eviction of the petitioner from a shop occupied by the petitioner in Khari Baoli, Delhi.2. According to the petitioner, the impugned order is erroneous and is barred by t...
Smt. Vidya Dhek and Ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO3602014 Decided on 17th November, 2014 SMT. VIDYA DHEK & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Ms. Aruna Mehta, Adv. Versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK A.K.PATHAK, J.(ORAL) CM No.18893/2014 For the reasons explained in the application delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application is disposed of. CM No.18892/2014 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. FAO3602014 1. Appellant no.1 is widow; whereas appellant nos. 2 and 3 are children of Late Shri Kailash Singh Dhek. They filed a claim petition before the Railway Claim Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi seeking compensation of `4 lacs in respect of death of Shri Kailash Singh Dhek, in an alleged untoward incident dated 20th January, 2008, relating to a train. In the claim petition, it was stated that deceased was working in a firm in Gurgaon. The said firm was having an office at Okhla Industrial Area as...
National Highways Authority of India Vs. M/S Prakash Atlanta Jv
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:10. 10.2014 Judgment delivered on:17. 11.2014 % + R.P. Nos. 419/2012 & 200/2013 In FAO(OS) 55/2012 NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Petitioner Versus M/S PRAKASH ATLANTA JV ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Vikas Goel, Mr Kunal Dutta & Ms Medhashah, Advocates For the Respondents: Mr. Amar Dave with Mr Chirag M. Shroff and Ms Priyanka Rai, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER,J Review Petition Nos. 419/2012 and 200/2013.1. We may note at the outset that the captioned review petitions are confined to a single issue, which is that, the grant of compound interest vide the award dated 26.04.2004, was against the mandate of law. Since the petition filed by the review petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the 1996 Act), which was numbered as OMP No.339/2004, was dismis...
M/S G.P.S Properties Pvt Ltd and Anr Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corpora ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on:17. h November, 2014 + CS(OS) 814/2014 M/S G.P.S PROPERTIES PVT LTD & ANR Through: ..... Plaintiffs Mr. Rajat Malhotra, Adv. versus SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION& ANR ..... Defendants Through: Nemo. % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL G.P. MITTAL, J.1. This suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs seeking relief of declaration that the Assessment Order no.TAX/CIR/2013/453 dated 01.03.2013 passed by the Defendants and subsequent demand for payment on the basis of the Assessment Order as well as notice and warrant of attachment issued in pursuance thereof are illegal. The Plaintiffs further seek a decree of permanent injunction qua issuance of any such demand in future.2. On 24.03.2014, at the time of preliminary hearing of the suit, certain doubts were raised about the maintainability of the suit based upon the judgments in Srikant Kashinath Jituri v. Corporation of the City of Belgaum (1994) 6 SCC572and N.D.M.C. v. Satish Ch...
Kamlesh Kumari and Another Vs. Matram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order delivered on:17. h November, 2014 % + I.A. No.16795/2014 in CS(OS) 1277/2013 KAMLESH KUMARI AND ANOTHER Through Mr.Ankit Jain, Adv. ..... Plaintiffs versus MATRAM Through ..... Defendant Mr.R.P.S.Bhatti, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of Rs.24,15,000/- along with pendente lite and future interest @12% per annum under Order XXXVII CPC. The suit was listed before Court on 5th July, 2013. The summons were issued to enter appearance in the format prescribed under Order XXXVII CPC to the defendant for 21st November, 2013.2. In the meanwhile, an application for summons for judgment was filed by the plaintiffs, being I.A. No.14372/2013. It was noticed by the Joint Registrar that there was no appearance on behalf of the defendant on record. On 21st November, 2013 when the matter was listed before the Joint Registrar, it was recorded that the application for summons for...
- ‹ Prev
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- Next ›
- Last »