Delhi Court December 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.
Jai Kishore @ Sheru Vs. The State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: December 15, 2015 + CRL.A. 1318/2014 SUNIL Represented by: ..... Appellant Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP Insp.Sanjeev, PS Shahbad Dairy CRL.A. 1271/2014 JAI KISHORE @ SHERU Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Sunil Dahiya, Advocate versus THE STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, Advocate Insp.Sanjeev, PS Shahbad Dairy CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Believing the testimony of Sushila PW-1, her son Tinku PW-2 and her neighbour Rekha PW-4, vide impugned decision dated April 24, 2014 the learned Trial Judge has held that the prosecution has successfully proved the fact that appellants Jai Kishore @ Sheru and Sunil along with two absconding co-accused named Raju and Munna, in furtherance of their common intention, using the handle Ex.P-1 of a hand-pump and a wooden stick ...
Mukesh and Ors. Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. No.784 of 2008 MUKESH & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Atul Kumar and Mr. Binay Kumar Jha, Advocates. versus STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Isha Khanna, APP. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER1512.2014 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1 st August 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) in SC No.62 of 2006 convicting Mukesh, Accused No.1 (A-1) and Krishna, Accused No.3 (A-3) [Appellants herein]. for the offence under Section 498A/34 IPC and the order on sentence dated 5 th August 2008 sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 2 years and fine of Rs.5,000 each and in default to undergo RI for 2 months.2. By the same judgment both accused were acquitted for the offence under Section 328/34 IPC and Ishwar, Accused No.2 (A-2) was acquitted of all the offences. The case of the prosecution 3. Sheela @ Sushila (PW-3) got married to A-1 on 12th November 2003. She and ...
Competent Security Services Vs. Govt of Nct of Delhi and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: December 15, 2014 + W.P. (C) No.1660/2011 COMPETENT SECURITY SERVICES ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. A.K. Singla, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Naresh Daksh and Mr. Sheetesh Khanna, Advs. versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS Represented by: NEMO. ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.1. The present petition is directed against the impugned award dated 06.09.2010 whereby the respondent No.2 / workman was granted reinstatement with 50% back wages and continuity of service.2. Mr. A.K. Singla, ld. Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that respondent No.2 was appointed as Masson. As per his letter of appointment, which is at Page 8 of the petition, he was directed to work at Maurya Sheraton Hotel w.e.f 03.05.2001. As per the terms of appointment, absence for a continuous period of 10 days (including absence for which leave though applied for but not granted) and when oversta...
Krishan Kumar Huf Vs. Govt of Nct of Delhi and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:15. 12.2014 W.P.(C) 7753/2014 .... Petitioner KRISHAN KUMAR HUF versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr B.S. Maan and Mr Vishal Maan. For the Respondent/DDA : Mr Arjun Pant, Advocate for DDA. For the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr Siddhartha Panda. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. The petitioner seeks 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. A declaration is sought to the effect that the acquisition proceeding, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition, ought to be deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The Award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (her...
M/S. Patel Roadways Ltd. Vs. P.O. Industrial Tribunal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:12. 12.2014 W.P.(C) 8545/2003 M/S. PATEL ROADWAYS LTD. ..... Petitioner versus P.O. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr M. Y. Khan. For the Respondent : Ms Rashmi B. Singh. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner impugns an order dated 01.10.2003 (hereafter the impugned order) passed by the Industrial Tribunal whereby the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner against respondent no.2 workman was vitiated and the report of the enquiry officer was held to be perverse.2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts for examining the controversy in the present petition are that respondent no.2 was working as MIS Executive (i.e. Management Information System Executive) with the petitioner. On 30.11.1993, the petitioner suspended respondent no.2 and issued a charge sheet dated 01.02.1994 alleging that respondent no.2 caused the Divisio...
Frank Kingsley Ugochukwu and Anr. Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intellige ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:1. t December 2014 Decision on:12th December 2014 CRL.A. No.1173 of 2010 FRANK KINGSLEY UGOCHUKWU & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Yogesh Saxena, Advocate. versus DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE ..........Respondent Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT1212.2014 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14th July 2010 passed by the learned Special Judge in SC No.26-A/2006 convicting the Appellants under Section 21(c) and Section 29 read with Section 21 of the Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) and the order on sentence dated 17th July 2010 whereby each of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) of ten years and fine of Rs.1,00,000 each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for each of the offences under Section 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The case of the prose...
Radhey Shyam Bagla (Since Deceased) Thr. Lrs Vs. Smt Ratni Devi Kahnan ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:11. 12.2013 Pronounced on:12. 12.2014 + RFA (OS) 5/1982 RADHEY SHYAM BAGLA (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS ..... Appellants Through: Sh. Suryakant Singla, Advocate. Versus SMT. RATNI DEVI KAHNANI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES ..... Respondents Through: Sh. Rajeev Sharma with Sh. Harmeet Singh, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Suit No.446 of 1967, dated 10.12.1981, i.e., by which the learned Single Judge had granted a preliminary decree of partition.2. At the outset, it is essential to trace the relationships between the various parties involved. The core issue in the judgment of the Single Judge turned upon the reading of the will of one Seth Ram Lal Khemka. Seth Ram Lal Khemka had a sister, Smt. Godavari Devi. The appellant, Shri Radhey Shyam Bagla (first ...
Sahil Sachdeva Vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7374/2014 & CM APPL. 17237/2014 SAHIL SACHDEVA ....Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate with Mr. Ayush Arora and Ms. Aastha Chopra, Advoates. versus GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Mukul Talwar, Advocate with Mr. Sradhananda Mohapatra and Mr. Vipin Singh, Advocates for GGSIPU. Reserved on :20. h November, 2014 Date of Decision :12. h December, 2014 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J:1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the respondent No.1- Universitys action of not allotting a seat to the petitioner in his preferred course option viz. BBA LL.B. in the supplementary counselling conducted by the respondent No.1-University on 20th October, 2014 pursuant to the respondent No.1-Universitys Notification dated 16th October, 2014. Petitioner has also sought a direction to respondent No.1-University to allot a seat to the petitioner in BBA LL.B. Cou...
Lekan Akins Vs. the State (N.C.T. of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. No.483 of 2014 Reserved on: December 1, 2014 Decision on: December 12, 2014 LEKAN AKINS ..... Appellant Through: Mr. J.S. Kushwaha, Advocate. versus THE STATE (N.C.T of Delhi) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT1212.2014 Introduction 1. The challenge in this appeal is to the impugned judgment dated 18th January 2014 passed by the learned Special Judge, Delhi in Session Case No.14/11 convicting the Appellant, Lekan Akins, for the offence under Section 21 (c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (NDPS Act) and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act (FA) and the order on sentence dated 24th January 2014 whereby for the offence under Section 21 (c) NDPS Act the Appellant had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of ten years and fine of Rs. 1 lakh, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for a period of two years and for the offence unde...
M/S Unitel Technology (India) Pvt Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Smp International ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :25. h NOVEMBER, 2014 DECIDED ON :12. h DECEMBER, 2014 + CS(OS) 1532/2011 & CRL.M.A.No.16770/2012 M/S UNITEL TECHNOLOGY (INDIA) PVT LTD. & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Through : Mr.Manu K.Giri, Advocate. VERSUS SMP INTERNATIONAL & ORS. ..... Defendants Through : Mr.Ashok K.Juneja, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P. GARG, J.1. The plaintiffs M/s. Unitel Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd. & anr. have filed the instant suit for recovery of ` 41 lacs.2. Plaintiffs case is that a production unit at SDF No.E-17, Noida Export Processing Zone to repair and refuberish telephones was set up. The plaintiff company was 100% export oriented unit. However, it got special permission and licence to sell products in India. Defendants No.1 & 2 used to sell products i.e. telephones on behalf of the plaintiffs company in India. Defendant No.3 used to receive goods on behalf of the defendant No.2. These facts have been admitted in the cross-exami...
- ‹ Prev
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- Next ›
- Last »