Delhi Court December 2014 Judgments
Nasir Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
$~9,10,13, 14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : December 04, 2014 + CRL.A. 1094/2014 NASIR Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Vivek Sharma, Advocate with Mr.Ashok Verma, Advocate versus THE STATE Represented by: + ..... Respondent Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State with Insp.Vijay Kumar, P.S.Vivek Vihar CRL.A. 1121/2014 RAJ KUMAR @ JHUMRU Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Rajat Agnihotri, Advocate versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Represented by: + ..... Respondent Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State with Insp.Vijay Kumar, P.S.Vivek Vihar CRL.A. 1374/2014 KALE Represented by: CRL.A. Nos. 1094, 1121, 1374 & 1459 of /2014 ..... Appellant Mr.Vivek Sharma, Advocate with Mr.Ashok Verma, versus THE STATE Represented by: + ..... Respondent Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State with Insp.Vijay Kumar, P.S.Vivek Vihar CRL.A. 1459/2014 AKEEL Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Azhar Qayum, Advocate versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the ...
Tag this Judgment!the Registrar, Supreme Court of India Vs. Commodore Lokesh K.Batra and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:04. 12.2014 W.P.(C) 6634/2011 & CM No.13398/2011 THE REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ..... Petitioner versus COMMODORE LOKESH K.BATRA 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 03.08.2011 passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter the CIC) directing the Central Public Information Officer of the Supreme Court (hereafter CPIO) to provide information to respondent no.1 regarding pending cases which had been heard and orders reserved. The CIC had further directed that if the information sought was centrally not available, the necessary arrangement be made in future for compiling such information a...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Ms Shoes East Ltd Vs. Om Prakash Khaitan and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgement delivered on:04. 12.2014 + CS(OS) 2165/2012 M/S MS SHOES EAST LTD ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr Pavan Sachdeva, CMD of Plntf. versus OM PRAKASH KHAITAN & ORS Through ..... Defendants CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J IA No.20267/2012 (condonation of delay of 88 days) 1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the objections under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short the 1940 Act). To be noted, there is no representation on behalf of the applicant/ defendant no.1, at whose instance the captioned application has been filed. Defendant no.1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 17.04.2014. No-one has represented defendant no.1 thereafter.2. In any event, it is averred in the captioned application that notice of award dated 12.05.2012, was received by defendant no.1 on 12.06.2012. It is averred that the said notice was dated 05.06.2012. Defendant no.1, further avers...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Kumar Pandey @ Anil Kumar and Anr Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and Or ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5280/2014 ARUN KUMAR PANDEY @ ANIL KUMAR & ANR Through ..... Petitioners Mr. Ketan Madan, Adv. with petitioners. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS ..... Respondent Through Mr. O. P. Saxena, Additional Public Prosecutor. ASI Ram Kishan P.S. I.P.Estate. Smt. Shanti, Widow of deceased, in person. Sh. Kishan Prakash, son of deceased, in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(ORAL) Crl.M.A. No.18013/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application is disposed off. Crl.M.C. No.5280/2014 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.100/2010 registered under Sections 279, 337 IPC at police station I.P. Estate, on 22.07.2010, on the ground that the matter has been settled between the accused / petitioners and the legal representatives of the deceased Khanchand.2. Issue notice.3. Mr. O. P. Saxena, Additional Public Prosecutor fo...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Gautam Vs. Jai Prakash and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
$~A-9 & 10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Decision:04. 12.2014 MAC.APP. 280/2011 DEEPAK GAUTAM Through ..... Appellant Mr.Navneet Goyal, Advocate. versus JAI PRAKASH & ORS Through + ..... Respondents Ms.Jagrati Singh, Advocate for R-1 and 3. Ms.Shubhanda Khosla, Advocate for R2. MAC.APP. 330/2012 JAI PRAKASH & ANR Through ..... Appellants Ms.Jagrati Singh, Advocate. versus NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD & ORS ..... Respondents Through Ms.Shubhanda Khosla, Advocate for R1. Mr.Navneet Goyal, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(Oral) 1. These two appeals impugn the award dated 20.11.2010. MAC APP. No.330/2012 is filed by the owner of the offending vehicle whearas MAC. APP. 280/2011 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. Page 1 of 8 MAC. APP.280/2011 & 330/2012 2. The brief facts which led to filing of the claim petition are that on 15.09.2006 the appellant Sh. Deepak Gautam was going on his motorcycle and when h...
Tag this Judgment!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...
Tag this Judgment!Ashutosh Verma Vs. Cbi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:18. h September, 2014 Date of Decision:4thDecemher, 2014 % + CRL. M.C. 79/2014 ASHUTOSH VERMA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, Ms. Smriti Sinha, Mr. Shri Singh, Ms. Swati Goswami, Ms. Vasundhara Nagrath, Mr. Pulkit Mishra, Ms. Namita Wali and Mr. Abhinav, Advocates. versus CBI Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Narender Mann, Spl. PP for CBI with Mr. Manoj Pant, Ms. Utkarsha Kohli, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH1 By way of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, the petitioner has assailed impugned order dated 01.11.2013 passed by learned Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-02, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in CC No.06/2013 arising out of RC No.AC-1-2008-A0001-ACU-1, New Delhi whereby application under Section 207 Cr.P.C. filed by th...
Tag this Judgment!Dhiren Gulati Vs. State and Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
$~9 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 5157/2014 DHIREN GULATI ..... Petitioner Through Ms.Manju Mehta & Mr.Kunal Mehta, Advocates with petitioner in person. versus STATE & ANR Through ..... Respondents Mr.O.P.Saxena, APP with SI Birender Singh PS Chitranjan Park. Complainant in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA ORDER0412.2014 % Crl.M.A.No.17687/2014 (exemption) Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application is disposed off. Crl.M.C. No.5157/2014 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.284/2013 registered under Sections 498-A/406 IPC at Police Station Chitranjan Park on 19th October, 2013 on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.2. Issue notice. Mr. O.P. Saxena, Additional Public Prosecutor enters appearance and accepts notice on behalf of the State.3. Respondent no.2 and complainant are present in person. They are identified b...
Tag this Judgment!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...
Tag this Judgment!Yahoo ! Inc. Vs. Manoj Tulsani and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order delivered on:4. h December, 2014 % + CS(OS) No.3444/2012 YAHOO! INC. Through ..... Plaintiff Mr. Dhruv Anand, Adv. with Ms. Udita, Adv. versus MANOJ TULSANI & ORS. Through ..... Defendants None CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral) 1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for the purpose of seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of its registered trademark Yahoo, passing off, dilution and tarnishment against the defendants.2. It has been stated that the plaintiff, Yahoo! Inc, is a leading global Internet brand and communications, commerce and media company that connects people to their passions, their communities and worlds knowledge by offering a comprehensive branded network of searching, directory, information, communication, shopping, electronic commerce and other online services to millions of users daily. Plaintiffs Internet services are rendered under the unique and highly distinctive t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- Next ›
- Last »