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.
Rajender Kumar and ors Vs. Govt of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2014
$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:5. h December, 2014 + W.P.(C) 2665/2011 RAJENDER KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioners Represented by: Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal and Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advs. Versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Sumit Chander, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks direction for setting aside the impugned award dated 07.11.2009 passed in ID No.25/2005 whereby the claim petition of the workman has been dismissed.2. Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the terms of reference vide order dated 09.11.2004 was as under:Whether the services of Sh. Chaman Singh, S/o, Sh. Ram Pal and Others (As per annexure A) have been terminated illegally and / or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief along with other consequential benefits in terms of existing laws / Govt. Notifications...
Mani Kumar Rinkesh and anr Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 125/2014 Decided on :05. 12.2014 IN THE MATTER OF: MANI KUMAR RINKESH & ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Shanker Raju, Advocate with Mr. Nilansh Gaur, Advocate versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Latika Choudhary, Advocate for Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate for R-2/D&SJ.Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC with Mr. Siddhartha Das, Advocate for R-3/UOI. CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral) 1. The main relief sought by the petitioners is for issuance of directions to the respondent No.3/Department of Tele-communication (in short DOT), to allow their repatriation in the respondent No.2/D&SJ.2. Counsel for the respondent No.2/D&SJ draws the attention of the court to a letter dated 02.08.2013, issued by the respondent No.3/DOT, informing the latter that all the officials, who had joined the DOT including those from the Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, have successfully completed their probation period vide orde...
Deere and Co. and anr. Vs. S. Harcharan Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order delivered on:5. h December, 2014 % + CS(OS) No.3760/2014 DEERE & CO. & ANR. Through ..... Plaintiffs Mr.Pravin Anand, Adv. with Ms.Vaishali Mittal, Ms.D. Neha Reddy and Mr.Siddhant Chamola, Advs. versus S. HARCHARAN SINGH & ANR. Through None ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral) I.A. No.24478/2014 This is an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 13 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from filing the originals of the documents. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed, subject to originals being produced at the time of admission/denial of the documents. The application is disposed of. I.A. No.24479/2014 (U/s 149 CPC) Learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that he would be filing the court fee within one week. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel, the application is disposed of. CS(OS) No.3760/2014 Let the plaint be registered as ...
Rajbir Singh and ors. Vs. Vijay Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on :4. h December, 2014 + CS(OS) 2265/2012 RAJBIR SINGH & ORS. Through ..... Plaintiffs Mr. Prem Kishore Tripathi, Advocate & Mr. K.K. Sinha, Advocate versus VIJAY SINGH Through ..... Defendant Ms. Gita Dhingra, Advocate % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL G.P. Mittal, J.(Oral) CS(OS) 2265/2012 & I.A.13627/2012(O.XXXIX Rules 1&2 CPC) 1. By virtue of this application under Order XXXIX Rules 1and 2 CPC, the Plaintiffs seek an ad interim injunction restraining Defendant Vijay Singh from selling, alienating or parting with possession of the suit property i.e. 1/3rd undivided share of deceased Bishan Singh in the joint holding i.e. agricultural land and residential houses upon gher and plots situated within the revenue estate of Village Goela Khurd and Kutabapur, New Delhi till the decision of the suit.2. This suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been filed by the Plaintiffs who are the sons and grand-son of Kushi R...
Geeta Jairath Vs. Amit Kukreja and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on:04. h December, 2014 + CS (OS) No.2162/ 2013 GEETA JAIRATH .... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Imran Ali, Advocate versus AMIT KUKREJA AND ORS. Through: .... Defendants Ex-parte CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL1 This is a suit for recovery of 24,92,000/- with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum.2. As per the case of the Plaintiff, Defendant No.1 had approached the Plaintiff along with his brother (Defendant No.2) and mother (Defendant No.3) to seek some assistance for matrimonial alliance of Defendant No.1. The Plaintiff was running a social consultancy for matrimonial alliances from her office at B-6, SF, Shivalik Enclave, New Delhi.3. During the course of discussions, the Defendants became aware of the good financial position of the Plaintiff, therefore, the Defendants invited the Plaintiff to visit their office at Malviya Nagar. Defendants No.1 and 2 also allured the Plaintiff to lend them some money as the Defendan...
K.T. Holidays Pvt Ltd. Vs. Japan International Co-operation Agency
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on:04. hDecember, 2014 + CS (OS) No.383/ 2013 K.T. HOLIDAYS PVT LTD. Through: .... Plaintiff Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi, Advocate versus JAPAN INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION AGENCY .... Defendant Through: Mr. Amit Dhingra, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL CS (OS) No.383/ 2013 AND I.A. No.14388/ 2014 1. This suit for recovery of 79,53,634/- has been filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant ( 69,53,634/- being the price of air tickets; interest @ 24% per annum from the month of February, 2010 and 10,00,000/- towards damages) with the allegation that the Defendant approached the Plaintiff for supply of air tickets (for the officers and employees of the Defendant) and a Travel Desk Agreement (TDA) dated 01.04.2009 was entered into between the parties whereby the Plaintiff was required to provide services like renting cars, booking hotels, air tickets etc. to the Defendant. For this purpose, one employee of the Plaintiff was also...
Khajan Singh Vs. Dutt Kumar Maity
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 153/2014 4th December, 2014 % KHAJAN SINGH Through: ......Petitioner Mr. S.P. Sharma, Advocate. VERSUS DUTT KUMAR MAITY Through: ...... Respondent Mr. V.V. Singh, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. No.2720/2014 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. + C.M.(M) No.153/2014 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 21.11.2013 by which the Rent Control Tribunal has dismissed the first appeal filed by the petitioner/landlord under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against the judgment of the trial court/Rent Controller dated 15.4.2013 dismissing the application of the petitioner/landlord under Section 151 read with Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for filing the amended site plan of the tenanted pr...
Bakhtawar Singh S/O Sh. Sarmukh Singh Vs. Bakhtawar Singh S/O Late Haz ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % CM(M) No.1068/2014 4th December , 2014 BAKHTAWAR SINGH S/O SH. SARMUKH SINGH Through: ......Petitioner Mr. J.S.Mehra, Advocate. VERSUS BAKHTAWAR SINGH S/O LATE HAZOOR SINGH 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 trial court dated 22.9.2014 by which the trial court has dismissed the application for amendment filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) on the ground that if the amendment as prayed for is allowed, it will amount to setting up by the petitioner/plaintiff of a totally new case and which will in fact be contradictory to the stand as set up in the existing pleadings.2. The subject suit was a suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction filed by the petitioner/plaintiff claiming that...
Pinky Sharma Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:30. 10.2014 Judgment delivered on:04. 12.2014 % W.P.(Crl.) 2026/2014 and Crl. M.A. No.15639/2014 PINKY SHARMA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Pradeep Jain, Mr A. Samad, Mr. Shubhankar Jha & Mr. Ashish Batra, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG along with Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC and Mr. Ajay Sondhi & Ms. Shreya Sinha, Advocates for respondent No.1/ UOI. Mr. S.K. Dubey & Mr. Rajmangal Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2/ DRI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI VIPIN SANGHI, J.1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek a writ of Certiorari- to quash the detention order bearing No.F. No.673/07/2014-CUS VIII dated 25.07.2014 (hereinafter referred to as the detention order) passed under Section 3(1) (i) & 3 (1) (iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smu...
Ramesh Kumar Vs. the Commissioner of Industries and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:04. 12.2014 W.P.(C) 3479/2012 RAMESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES AND ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr S.S. Parashar. For the Respondents : Ms Renuka Arora for DSIIDC. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner impugns an order dated 13.05.2010 (hereafter impugned order) rejecting petitioners application/appeal for allotment of industrial plot under the relocation scheme on the ground that the petitioner had failed to establish that he was carrying manufacturing business prior to 19.04.1996.2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the industrial units which were functioning in non-conforming areas were to be relocated to conforming areas in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors.: W.P.(C) No.4677/1985. In order to facilitate shifting of industrial units from n...
- ‹ Prev
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- Next ›
- Last »