Delhi Court December 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 24 of about 1,089 results (0.023 seconds)the Oriental Insurancec Co Ltd Vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors
Court: Delhi
$~A-64 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:19. 12.2014 + MAC.APP. 1157/2014 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCEC CO LTD ..... Appellant Through Mr.A.K.Soni, Advocate versus VINOD KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondent Through CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) 1. The present appeal is filed seeking to impugn the Award dated 1.10.2014.2. The background facts are that on 1.6.2013 respondent No.1 was sitting in the capacity of a helper with the driver in the cabin in the Canter. The Canter was coming to Delhi from Neemrana. At District Rewari it was hit by a Trailer stated to be driven by its driver at a high speed rashly and negligently in a zigzag manner. Due to the sudden and forcible impact, respondent No.1 sustained grievous injuries on his left leg and other grievous injuries on all parts of his body.3. Based on the evidence on record the Tribunal concluded that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the trailer.4. On...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Avtar Vs. State and Anr.
Court: Delhi
$~37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:19. h December, 2014 + CRL.M.C. 2753/2013 RAM AVTAR Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Advocate. versus STATE & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Vinod Diwakar, APP for the State. Mr. Akash Deep, Authorised Representative. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.P.VAISH VED PRAKASH VAISH, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of complaint case bearing CC No.3075/12 titled as Shree Gokulam Chit & Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sh. Ram Avtar as well as the proceedings arising out of the same.2. Succinctly stating the facts giving rise to present petition are that respondent No.2 herein filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as NI Act) in respect of dishonour of three cheques bearing Nos.687716, 687717 and 687718 all dated 29.01.2011 for Rs.65,300/- (Rupees sixty five thousand three hundred) each drawn on ...
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!Vijay Nath Yadav Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:19. 12.2014 + WP (C) No.2450 of 2012 VIJAY NATH YADAV Through: ...... Petitioner Mr. U. Srivastava, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI, J.(Oral) 1. In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 1.3.2012 & 23.3.2012, whereby his candidature for the post of Sub-Inspector in BSF was cancelled and was discharged from service on the ground that he was overage for the said post as on the cut off date of 04.07.2008.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). He joined the Special Protection Group (Cabinet Secretariat) as an SA on deputation from 17.4.2006 and was also extended the benefits of ACP w.e.f. 26.3.2008. While on deputation, he took the exami...
Tag this Judgment!Suchita Gupta` Vs. Union of India and Anr.
Court: Delhi
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 402/2014 SUCHITA GUPTA 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 ORDER1912.2014 % C.M.APPL. No.20813/2014 (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. 402/2014 Page 1 C.M.APPL. No.20812/2014 (for condonation of delay) There is delay of 37 days in filing the...
Tag this Judgment!Manju Gupta Vs. Union of India and Anr.
Court: Delhi
$~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 407/2014 MANJU GUPTA 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 ORDER1912.2014 % C.M.APPL. No.20895/2014 (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. 407/2014 Page 1 C.M.APPL. No.20894/2014 (for condonation of delay) There is delay of 37 days in filing the ...
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!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!Shikhar Jain Vs. Sunil Kumar Jain and Anr
Court: Delhi
$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA6712014 Decided on 19th December, 2014 SHIKHAR JAIN Through: versus ..... Appellant Mr. Saurabh, Adv. SUNIL KUMAR JAIN & ANR Through: None. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK A.K.PATHAK, J.(ORAL) 1. The appellant is husband of respondent No.2. Appellant had taken the suit property i.e., property bearing No.8555, 1st Floor, Katra Dhunimal, Ganesh Das Building, Bhargarh, Roshan Ara Road, Delhi -110007 from the respondent no.1 on a monthly rent of Rs. 6,000/- per month, vide Rent Agreement dated 10.05.2011. Thereafter, appellant occupied the tenanted premises along with his wife, that is, respondent no.2. Respondent no.1 filed a suit for possession, recovery of mesne profits and arrears of rent against the appellant and respondent no.2 alleging therein that appellant was irregular in making payment of rent. Ultimately, he stopped paying rent from the month of February, 2012 onwards. Appellant and respondent no.2 did ...
Tag this Judgment!