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...
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...
Vikramjit Singh and anr Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
60 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:17. 11.2014 W.P.(C) 4174/2014 & CM83712014 VIKRAMJIT SINGH & 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 and Ms Jyoti Kataria. For the Respondents : Mr Hashmat Nabi for UOI. Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi for LAC/L&B. Ms Mrinalini Sen Gupta and Ms Mrinmoi Chatterjee for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. By way of this writ petition 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. The petitioner No.2 is the sister of petitioner No.1. They seek a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisit...
Manjeet Singh and ors Vs. State and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5160/2014 MANJEET SINGH & ORS Through ..... Petitioners Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate with petitioners. versus STATE & ORS Through .... Respondent Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor. Sub Inspector Dinesh Kumar. Mr. K.K. Vijay, Advocate with R2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral) 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.50/2014 on 24.01.2014, registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 34 IPC at police station Nihal Vihar, on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.2. Issue notice. Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Mr. K. K. Vijay, Advocate for the complainant, who has been arrayed as respondent No.2 to this petition, enter appearance and accept notice. The complainant, who is also present in person, is also identified by the Investigating Officer, Sub Inspector Dinesh Kumar.3. It is s...
Union of India and anr. Vs. Sudhanshu Kumar Khare and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:31. 07.2014 Pronounced on:17. 11.2014 + W.P.(C) 7370/2010, C.M. NOS.6770/2014, 8140/2014, 8169/2014 UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Sh. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Sh. Jasmeet Singh, Sh. Ruchir Mishra and Sh. Mukesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocates, for UOI. Versus SUDHANSHU KUMAR KHARE AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Respondent No.1 in person. Sh. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Supriya Juneja and Sh. Viraj Gandhi, Advocates, for Resp. Nos.5 and 7. Sh. G.D. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Piyush Sharma, Advocates, for Resp. No.4. Sh. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate, for Resp. No.8/UPSC. Sh. Darpan Wadhwa, Sh. Arun Khatri and Ms. Roshni Namboodiry, Advocates, for Sh. D.S. Shukla/Applicant. Sh. Tarun Sharma with Ms. Boudh Prabha, Advocates, for Resp. Nos. 14, 33, 41, 47, 73 and 84. + W.P.(C) 7371/2010, C.M. NO.6771/2014 BHUPINDER KUMAR AND ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Sh. Tarun Sharma and Ms. Boudh Prabha, Advocates. Versus U...
Hitender Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7661/2014, 7604/2014, 7580/2014 Reserved on:5. 10.11.2014 Decided on :17. 11.2014 IN THE MATTERS OF : HITENDER ..... Petitioner in WP(C) No.7661/2014 AJAY KUMAR VIKRANT ..... Petitioner in WP(C) No.7604/2014 ..... Petitioner in WP(C) No.7580/2014 Through: Mr. Aviral Dhirendra, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC with Mr.Nagendra Benipal, Advocate CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J.1. By this common judgment, the Court proposes to decide all the three cases as the facts are more or less similar and the grievance of the petitioners are identical. For ready reference, the facts of the case in WP76612014 are being referred to.2. 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 and the order dated 27.01.2014 issued by the Regional Director (NR) of the respondent No.2/Staff Selection ...
M/S Anuchem Polymers Vs. North Delhi Power Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: November 17, 2014 + RSA1662009 M/S ANUCHEM POLYMERS Through: ..... Appellant Mr.Ramesh Kumar, Advocate versus NORTH DELHI POWER LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Manish Srivastava and Mr.Rahul Malhotra, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT ORAL % The appellant had merely sought a mandatory injunction against the respondent to restrain the respondent to claiming misuser charges, subletting charges etc. and the said suit has been decreed on merits by trial court but the First Appellate Court vide impugned judgment has set aside trial court judgment and dismissed appellants suit by holding it to be not maintainable as the relief of declaration was not sought. The factual matrix of this case already stands noticed in the opening paragraphs of the impugned judgment and needs no reiteration. At the hearing, it was submitted by learned counsel for appellant that the First Appellate Court ought not to have provided...
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...
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...
Sh. J.S. Arora Vs. Sh. Om Prakash Arya and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.M.(M) No.749/2013 & C.M.No.11538/2013 (Stay) 17th November, 2014 % SH. J.S. ARORA Through: ......Petitioner Mr.Rajat Aneja, Advocate. VERSUS SH. OM PRAKASH ARYA & ORS. Through: None ...... Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. No one appears for the contesting respondent no.1/plaintiff.2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the order of the trial court dated 30.5.2013 by which the trial court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for being impleaded under Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) as a defendant in the suit. The petitioner claims that he is a purchaser pendente lite of the suit property admeasuring 100 sq. yds. bearing no.VB-103, Virender Nagar, New Delhi.3. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the suit property from Sh.Surender Kumar Mahajan on 31.5....
- ‹ Prev
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- Next ›
- Last »