Delhi Court December 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 20 of about 1,089 results (0.013 seconds)Puneet Kaushik and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:23. 05.2014 Judgment pronounced on:19. 12.2014 LPA8842013 & CM43302014 PUNEET KAUSHIK & ANR. ..... Appellants versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellants : Mr Pravin Anand and Ms Divya Vijan Bajaj. For the Respondents : Mr Amrit Pal Singh, CGSC with Mr M.P.Singh and Dr Kavita Taunk for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL , J1 The instant appeal challenges the order dated 23.09.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)1631/2013. The writ petition was disposed of in the following terms:For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to grant within six (6) weeks from today, 27.09.2012 as the international filing date in respect of the PCT application submitted by the petitioners to the Indian Patent Office on 14.09.2012 and assign a...
Tag this Judgment!Har Parsad Gaur Vs. State
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 782 of 2008 HAR PARSAD GAUR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Amit Sharma and Mr Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocates. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr Rajat Katyal, APP. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER1912.2014 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28th August 2008 passed by the learned Special Judge in CC No.40/2003 convicting the Appellant under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and the order on sentence dated 29th August 2008, whereby the Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo RI for three months for the each of the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. Puran Chand, the complainant was employed with M/s Pooja Printers. He had filed a case in Labour Court against M/s Pooja Print...
Tag this Judgment!the Registrar, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal and ...
Court: Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:19. 12.2014 W.P.(C) 1842/2012 & CM No.4033/2012 THE REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ..... Petitioner versus SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAL AND ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Ms Maneesha Dhir, Mr K. P. S. Kohli, Mr Satyam Thareja and Ms Neha Singhj. For the Respondents : Mr Pranav Sachdeva for Mr Prashant Bhushan. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner impugns an order dated 01.02.2012 (hereafter the impugned order) passed by Central Information Commission (hereafter CIC) inter alia directing that records of reimbursement of medical bills of judges of the Supreme Court (whether serving or retired) be maintained separately for each judge so as to ensure that the summary of such expenses for each judge are available separately. The Central Public Information Officer of Supreme Court (hereafter CPIO) was dir...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Boston Beverages Pvt.Ltd. Vs. M/S Kingston Beverages and Ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:10. h December, 2014 Date of Decision:19. hDecember, 2014 % + CRL. M.C. 4380/2014 M/S BOSTON BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajat Wadhwa, Advocate versus M/S KINGSTON BEVERAGES & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr.V. Sridhar Reddy, Advocate + CRL. M.C. 4381/2014 M/S BOSTON BEVERAGES PVT.LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajat Wadhwa, Advocate versus RAMESH BABU SADHU Through: .....Respondent Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH JUDGMENT1 By was of these petitions filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), the petitioner assails orders dated 06.09.2014 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act), Central-01, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (in Crl. M.C. No.4380/2014) and order dated 08.09.2014 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (in Crl. M.C. No.4381/2014), whereby the complaint(...
Tag this Judgment!Jugal Kishor Ratnu Vs. Mrs. Meena Tevary and Ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON : November 25, 2014 DECIDED ON : December 19, 2014 + CS(OS) 1688/2006 JUGAL KISHOR RATNU ..... Plaintiff Through : Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Advocate with Ms.Ruchira Arora & Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates. versus MRS. MEENA TEVARY & ORS. ..... Defendants Through : Mr.Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Garima Prashad & Mr.Uday Joshi, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.IA No.2912/2014 (u/S154Evidence Act) 1. The plaintiff has instituted the instant suit for possession, prohibitory permanent injunction and mesne profits against the defendants. Issues were settled by an order dated 16.10.2008. 22.11.2013 before the Local Commissioner, On the plaintiff examined Dr.Rajiv Agarwal (PW-5) who proved photocopy of the medical certificate dated 26.12.2005 (Ex.PW-1/5) issued by him. In the crossexamination, Dr.Rajiv Agarwal was confronted with another certificate/document dated 01.08.2006 issued by him. It was exhibited as Ex...
Tag this Judgment!Vera Ruth Rego Gonsalves Vs. Manider Pal Singh Nee Maninder Pal and Or ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on:19. h December, 2014 + CS (OS) No.900/ 2010 VERA RUTH REGO GONSALVES Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. Surendra Desai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, Advocate versus MANIDER PAL SINGH NEE MANINDER PAL AND ORS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Vikas Mahajan, Advocate with Mr. Rohan Gupta, Advocate and Mr. S.S. Rai, Advocate for D-1 and D2 Mr. R.P. Sharma, Advocate for D-3 and D-5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL I.A. No.15449/ 2010 (Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC) in CS (OS) No.900/ 2010 1. This application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the Plaintiff/ Applicant for punishing Respondents Ms. Joyce Makhani, Mr. Vinay Chhabra and Mr. Jerry Makhani for violating the status quo order dated 11.05.2010 and for attachment of their property.2. The suit (CS (OS) 900/ 2010) for declaration, pre-emption, permanent injunction, partition and possession was filed by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sh.Bhuwaneshwar Pandey Vs. Sh.Piyush and Anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Ex.F.A.No.18/2013 & C.M.Nos.20777-20778/2014 19th December, 2014 % SH.BHUWANESHWAR PANDEY Through: ......Appellant Mr.Avdesh Kumar Singh, Advocate. VERSUS SH.PIYUSH & ANR. ...... Respondents Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M.Nos.20777/2014 (For Restoration) & 20778/2014 (Exemption) 1. This execution first appeal was ordered as being dismissed as not pressed in terms of the order dated 01.12.2014, and which order reads as under: Vide order dated 12.11.2014 these execution first appeals have been listed in Court by the Registrar on recording the statement of the appellant that the appellant does not want to pursue the appeals. Appeals are accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 2. This order was passed on 01.12.2014 inasmuch as before the Registrar on 12.11.2014, counsel for the appellant made the statement that the matter be listed in Court because the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Nitin Sharma Vs. Smt. Raj Rani
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. No.221/2013 19th December, 2014 % NITIN SHARMA Through: ......Petitioner Mr. D. S. Dalal, Advocate. VERSUS SMT. RAJ RANI ...... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. On the last date of hearing, the following order was passed:1. Respondent appears in person and seeks adjournment. Though there is no ground to grant adjournment simply because the counsel for the respondent has chosen not to come and also considering the fact that it is the respondent who had sought adjournment on the last two occasions to file the counter-affidavit, this petition is adjourned subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today.2. List on 19th December, 2014.3. It is made clear that no adjournment will be granted on the next date of hearing. 2. Counsel for the petitioner states that costs have not been paid in t...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Airport Authority of India and A ...
Court: Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:19. 12.2014 W.P.(C) 9051/2014 & CM No.20663/2014 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. ..... Petitioner versus AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr P. Sinha with Mr Avneesh Garg. For the Respondents : Mr Digvijay Rai, St. Counsel for Airport Authority of India/R-1. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J (ORAL) CAV11221123/2014 The learned counsel for the respondent/caveator has entered appearance. The caveat stands discharged. W.P.(C) 9051/2014 1. The petitioner impugns a common judgment and order dated 18.11.2014 (hereafter the impugned order) passed by the Airport Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereafter the Tribunal) in Appeals Nos. 4/CP/AAT/2013 and 5/CP/AAT/2013.2. The said appeals were in turn filed against separate orders dated 29.07.2013 passed by the Eviction Officer under Section 28D of the Airports Authority of India Act...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India and Anr.
Court: Delhi
$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 401/2014 ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. S.K. Rout and Ms. Dimple Dhamija, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: .....Respondents Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate for respondent-UOI Mr. A.S. Rao, Law Officer for respondent-DMRC CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER1912.2014 % C.M.APPL. No.20811/2014 (for condonation of delay) There is delay of 36 days in re-filing the accompanying appeal. Notice. Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate, accepts notice for respondent No.1UOI and Mr. A.S. Rao, Law Officer, accepts notice for respondent No.2DMRC. The reason put forth for the delay occasioned is that the time was consumed in arranging the court fee. The reason put forth provides sufficient cause for the delay occasioned. The application is allowed and the delay is condoned. The application is accordingly disposed of. LA.APP. 401/2014 Page 1 C.M.APPL. No.20810/2014 (for condonation of delay) There is delay of 40 days in filin...
Tag this Judgment!