Delhi Court December 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 23 of about 1,089 results (0.022 seconds)Hashmat Ali Vs. Amar Singh and Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:19. h December, 2014 + CRL.M.C. 5001/2014 HASHMAT ALI Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Kedar Yadav with Mr. Markandey Gupta, Advocates. versus AMAR SINGH & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Navin Sharma, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.P.VAISH VED PRAKASH VAISH, J.(ORAL) 1. By this petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has assailed order dated 13.08.2014 whereby criminal revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed.2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. seeking directions to the concerned SHO for registration of FIR. The concerned Metropolitan Magistrate called action taken report (ATR) from SHO, P.S. Tughlaq Road, New Delhi. The complainant adduced pre-summoning evidence and exa...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Israni Telecom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Akhil Rohatgi and Ors
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:19. h December, 2014 + RFA4062013 M/S ISRANI TELECOM PVT. LTD. Through: ....Appellant/Review Applicant Mr. Chetan Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Praveen Mahajan, Adv. Versus SH. AKHIL ROHATGI & ORS ..... Respondents/Non-review Applicants Through: Mr. Shyam Dutt, Adv. with R-1 in person. AND + RFA3512013 M/S ISRANI TELECOM PVT. LTD..Appellant/Review Applicant Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Praveen Mahajan, Adv. Versus SH. AKHIL ROHATGI & ORS ..... Respondents/Non-review Applicants Through: Mr. Shyam Dutt, Adv. with R-1 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW CM Nos.20772/2014 in RFA No.406/2013 & 20832/2014 in RFA No.351/2013 (both for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.2. The applications are disposed of. Review Petition No.559/2014, CMs No.20770/2014 (for stay) & 20771/2014 (for condonation of 284 days delay) in RFA4062013 & Review Petition No.562/2014, CMs No.20830/2014 (for stay)...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Boston Beverages Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ramesh Babu Sadhu
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!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!M/S Israni Telecom Pvt. Ltd.. Vs. Sh. Akhil Rohatgi and Ors
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:19. h December, 2014 + RFA4062013 M/S ISRANI TELECOM PVT. LTD. Through: ....Appellant/Review Applicant Mr. Chetan Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Praveen Mahajan, Adv. Versus SH. AKHIL ROHATGI & ORS ..... Respondents/Non-review Applicants Through: Mr. Shyam Dutt, Adv. with R-1 in person. AND + RFA3512013 M/S ISRANI TELECOM PVT. LTD..Appellant/Review Applicant Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Praveen Mahajan, Adv. Versus SH. AKHIL ROHATGI & ORS ..... Respondents/Non-review Applicants Through: Mr. Shyam Dutt, Adv. with R-1 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW CM Nos.20772/2014 in RFA No.406/2013 & 20832/2014 in RFA No.351/2013 (both for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.2. The applications are disposed of. Review Petition No.559/2014, CMs No.20770/2014 (for stay) & 20771/2014 (for condonation of 284 days delay) in RFA4062013 & Review Petition No.562/2014, CMs No.20830/2014 (for stay)...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash Batra Vs. Union of India and Anr.
Court: Delhi
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: December 19, 2014 + LA.APP. 400/2014 SUBHASH BATRA Through: ..... Appellant 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 JUDGMENT (ORAL) % C.M.APPL. No.20809/2014 (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. LA.APP. 400/2014 Page 1 The application is accordingly disposed of. C.M.APPL. No.20808/2014 (for condonation of delay) Th...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Vikrant Singh and Ors Vs. Sh. Wazir Singh
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.542/2014 & C.M.Nos.9470-9471/2014 19th December, 2014 % SH. VIKRANT SINGH & ORS Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. Vijender Kharb, Adv. & Mr. B.S. Kharb, Adv. versus SH. WAZIR SINGH Through: ..... Respondent Dr. Suman 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 of India is filed by the defendant nos.1 to 4 in the suit impugning the order of the trial court dated 22.03.2014 by which the trial court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners/defendant nos.1 to 4 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Order VII Rule 14 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for amending the written statement and also for taking additional documents on record as regards the new pleas.2. Firstly I must note that since one petition cannot be filed against two different orders, at this stage, this petit...
Tag this Judgment!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!Pooja Rani @ Pooja Prabhakar Vs. Union of India and Anr.
Court: Delhi
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 405/2014 POOJA RANI @ POOJA PRABHAKAR ..... 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.20840/2014 (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. 405/2014 Page 1 C.M.APPL. No.20839/2014 (for condonation of delay) There is delay of 40 day...
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!