Delhi Court December 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 101 of about 1,089 results (0.022 seconds)M/S Pasupati Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. and anr Vs. Smt. Niti JaI ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % CM(M) No.1060/2014 1st December , 2014 M/S PASUPATI SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LTD. & ANR. ......Petitioners. Through: Mr. Navin Chawla, Adv. Mr. Aditya V. Singh and Mr. Anurup Narula, Advocates. VERSUS SMT. NITI JAIN & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Mr. Rahul Shukla, 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 of India impugns the order of the trial court dated 21.10.2014 by which the trial court has directed the petitioners/defendants to lead evidence first.2. At the outset I must mention that powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are extraordinary and discretionary powers and are not meant to be exercised unless there is a grave prejudice or injustice by the trial court passing an order. Ordinarily, therefore original courts which are seized of the matter have powers to pass such orders which are o...
Tag this Judgment!Pritam Kaur Vs. Ashok
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.1059/2014 & CM No.19676/2014 (stay) % 1st December , 2014 PRITAM KAUR Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Mahesh Kumar Gautam, Advocate. VERSUS ASHOK ...... Respondent Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/defendant no.1 impugns the order of the trial court dated 16.10.2014 which has rejected the application filed by the petitioner/defendant no.1 to lead additional evidence.2. The application for additional evidence was filed by the petitioner/defendant no.1 at the stage of pronouncement of judgment and the impugned order records that the case was fixed for petitioners/defendant no.1s evidence for the first time on 22.11.2012 and thereafter various opportunities were granted to the defendants in the suit to lead evidence and ultimately counsel for the petitioner/defendant no.1 made...
Tag this Judgment!Juggal K Sood Vs. Kamal K Sood
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 484/1998 JUGGAL K SOOD Through: ..... Plaintiff Ch. Shamsuddin Khan, Adv. versus KAMAL K SOOD Through: ..... Defendant Mr. Rajat Aneja, Adv. with Mr.Vijay Kasana, Adv. for D-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL ORDER % 01.12.2014 IA No.7875/2014 IA No.7876/2014 IA No.7877/2014 IA No.7878/2014 1. (O.XXII Rule 9 CPC) in CS(OS) 484/1998; (delay) in CS(OS) 484/1998 ; (O.XXII Rule 4 CPC) in CS(OS) 484/1998 & (delay) in CS(OS) 484/1998 These applications are for substitution of the legal representatives (LRs) of the deceased Defendant no.1 and for setting aside the order of abatement as the application for substitution of LRs was not moved in time. Since the application for setting aside the abetment was also not moved in time, an application for condonation of delay in moving the application for setting aside of the abatement has also been moved.2. As per the averments made in IA No.7878/2014, there is a delay of 439 days in moving the...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Champa Devi Vs. Sh. Param Ved Goel
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % CM(M) No.1004/2014 1st December , 2014 SMT. CHAMPA DEVI Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Shekhar Aggarwal and Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocates. VERSUS SH. PARAM VED GOEL Through: ...... Respondent 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 order of the court below dated 19.7.2014 by which the application of the petitioner/plaintiff for restoration of the suit which was withdrawn by her on 23.7.2007 has been dismissed after recording of evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff with respect to whether the petitioner had or had not given the consent.2. The court below records that though the case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that she is an illiterate lady and she did not know that she is appearing in court and making a statement for withdrawal of the suit but the petitioner/plaintiff cannot be believed inasmuch as ...
Tag this Judgment!Real Image Media Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dlf Utilities Ltd.
Court: Delhi
* % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on :26. 11.2014 Judgment delivered on:01. 12.2014 + ARB. P. 109/2013 REAL IMAGE MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. . ..... PETITIONER Versus DLF UTILITIES LTD. ..... RESPONDENT Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr. Amol Chitale, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ankur Khandelwal, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER,J1 This is a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act). The reliefs prayed for, broadly, are : (i). appoint an independent arbitrator (ii). declare null and void the appointment of the person appointed by the respondent as an arbitrator; (iii). stay further proceedings before the arbitrator appointed by the respondent, till final adjudication of the instant matter; and (iv). lastly, cost of proceedings be awarded in favour of the petitioner.2. For the purposes of adjudicati...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Goldkist Mobile Academy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jammu and Kashmir Bank and O ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (CIVIL) No.7749/2014 Reserved on: Date of Decision: % 14th November, 2014 1st December, 2014 M/s Goldkist Mobile Academy Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner Through Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anil K. Khaware, Ms.Azma and Ms. Sara Sundaram, Advocates. Versus Jammu & Kashmir Bank & Ors. Respondents Through Mr. Arjun Singh Bhati, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Adv. for R-2. Mr. Ashish Sharma, Adv. for R-3. Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Adv. for R-4. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.M/s Goldkist Mobile Academy Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner-auction bidder by way of this writ petition under Article 226- 227 of the Constitution of India, has impugned the order dated 10th October, 2014, passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT, for short).2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s Priyanka Overseas Pvt. Ltd respondent No.3 (borrower, for short) had availed a loan facility from Jammu...
Tag this Judgment!Anoop Sati Vs. State and Anr
Court: Delhi
$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4577/2014 ANOOP SATI Through: ..... Petitioner Ms. Seema Gupta, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus STATE & ANR Through: ..... Respondents Ms. Nishi Jain, APP for the State with SI Ajay Singh, PS Darya Ganj. Mr. Mayank Mohan, Advocate for the complainant with complainant in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.420/2014 registered under Section 308 IPC at Police Station Darya Ganj on 19th August, 2014 on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.2. Issue notice. Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. Mayank Mohan, Advocate enter appearance and accept notice on behalf of the State/respondent No.1 and respondent No.2/complainant, respectively.3. Petitioner as well as complainant/respondent No.2-Sanjay Tiwari are present in person and are also i...
Tag this Judgment!Mahavir Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
$~10. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision:01. 12.2014 % W.P.(C.) No.5258/2013 MAHAVIR SINGH Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. C. Mohan Rao, Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma & Ms. Pallavi, Advocates. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Respondent Through: Mr. Arun Birbal & Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI VIPIN SANGHI, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. The petitioner, who was the original applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT/ Tribunal) in O.A. No.1137/2011 assails the order dated 10.10.2012, whereby the said Original Application was dismissed.2. At the relevant time, the petitioner was working as an Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in the respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA). He was issued a charge-sheet leveling the following charge:While functioning as UDC in LSB (R) in 1985 Shri Mahavir Singh handed over file No.F.4(1) 85 LSB (R) to Shri A.K. Malhotra, Stenographer, then working in Chief A...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Om Kanwar
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: December 01, 2014 + W.P.(C) 759/2011 DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Karunesh Tandan, Adv. Versus OM KANWAR ..... Respondent Represented by : Mr.R.R.Ahlawat, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.W.P.(C)759/2011 1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the award dated 29.08.2009 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.P. No.219/1994, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1948 (for short ID Act), has been dismissed.2. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:(i) Whether the workman has committed the misconduct as alleged in the charge sheet dated 18.01.1993 (Ex.AW1/6). (ii) Whether the Management had remitted/paid one months wages to the workman in terms of provisions of section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act ?.3. Mr. Karunesh Tandon, learned counsel...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Gaganjot Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
$~2. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % Decided on :01. 12.2014 W.P.(CRL) 1169/2014 SH. GAGANJOT SINGH Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Vivek Sood, Mr. Sanjay Rathi & Mr. Devender Partap Singh, Advocates. versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Additional Standing Counsel (Crl.) along with ACP R.S. Manku, Inspector Gagan Bhaskar and SI Randhir Singh, PSIGI Airport. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. The proceedings have been referred to the Division Bench by an order of the learned Single Judge. The order of reference dated 22.07.2014 sets out point of reference, which is as below:Whether a cartridge, which is capable of being fired, is a complete ammunition within the meaning of Section 2(b) of Arms Act or a minor part of ammunition as referred to in Section 45(d) of the Arms Act?.2. The brief facts are that this petition was instituted for quashing of the First Infor...
Tag this Judgment!