Delhi Court December 2014 Judgments
Sh. Hem Raj and ors. Vs. Sh. Nihal Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-2014
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI C.R.P.No.115/2014 & C.M.Nos.12897-12900/2014 03rd December, 2014 % SH. HEM RAJ & ORS. Through: ......Petitioners Mr.B.L.Gupta, Advocate. VERSUS SH. NIHAL CHAND & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This is a wholly frivolous and a malafide petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) filed by three defendants to a suit for partition, and who do not want to vacate the suit property, although the suit property has been auctioned, auction purchaser has deposited the price and the price has to be equally divided between the parties. Challenge is in fact to the consent order dated 25.3.2014 and therefore in fact this petition against a consent order does not lie.2. By the order dated 30.1.2014, the trial court recorded the aspects that the preliminary decree dated 20.1.2010 has become final after dismissal of the fir...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate Bank Vs. Smt. Sheela Aggarwal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.586/2013 3rd December , 2014 % SYNDICATE BANK ......Petitioner Through: Mr. V.Sudeer, Adv. VERSUS SMT. SHEELA AGGARWAL & ANR. ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Ankit Jain, Adv. for R-1. 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 petitioner, and which is the defendant no.2 in the suit, impugning the order of the trial court dated 4.4.2013 by which the trial court has refused to dismiss the suit under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).2. No doubt, the plaintiff in the suit/respondent no.1 herein had filed objections in the recovery proceedings before the Recovery Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal and which objections were dismissed by the recovery officer on 29.8.2007, and the appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) was also dismissed on 4.9.2008 as also the furthe...
Tag this Judgment!Rajender Kumar JaIn Vs. Sh. Shiv Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-2014
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RC.REV.No.275/2012 3rd December, 2014 % RAJENDER KUMAR JAIN Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Subhash Chandra, Advocate. VERSUS SH. SHIV KUMAR AND ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate with Mr. Keshav Yadav, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This rent control revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is filed by the petitioner/tenant impugning the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 8.5.2012 by which the Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant and has decreed the bonafide necessity eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act with respect to the tenanted premises being one shop on the ground floor of the property no.X/2809, Gali No.5, Raghubar Pura-II, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031 a...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Spearhead Digital Studio Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shri H. K. Mitroo
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-2014
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CM(M) 1067/2014 3rd December, 2014 % M/S SPEARHEAD DIGITAL STUDIO PVT. LTD. ......Petitioner Through: Mr. Z. Duggal, representative of the petitioner company in person. VERSUS SHRI H. K. MITROO Through: ...... Respondent Mr. P.S. Bindra, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) Caveat No.1073/2014 1. Counsel appears for the caveator and thus the caveat stands discharged. + C.M.(M) No.1067/2014 and C.M. Nos.19879-80/2014 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner-company, who is defendant in the suit, impugning the order dated 7.10.2014 by which right of the petitioner/defendant to crossexamine PW-1 was closed. The subsequent paragraphs of this judgment will show that how tenants in Delhi who are occupying the valuable properties, by hook or by crook keep on continuing and dragging the litigation thus causing grave haras...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Harmeet Singh Vs. Smt. Anshu Aggarwal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-2014
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI C.M.(M) No.84 /2014 and C.M.No.1514/2014 (delay) 03rd December, 2014 % SH. HARMEET SINGH ......Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person. VERSUS SMT. ANSHU AGGARWAL & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The petitioner appears in person and seeks an adjournment. I refuse to grant adjournment because this is one of the extreme cases of abuse of the process of the law which this Court has seen and which will become clear from the factual details, which I am stating below. Also, this case has already come up on two occasions earlier, yet no notice till date is issued. Therefore, no adjournment as prayed for can be granted as prayed by the petitioner on the ground that his counsel is not well.2. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff impugning the judgment dated 30.03.2013 of t...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Yaseen Vs. Diwan Singh Tokas
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-2014
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RC.REV.No.391/2014 3rd December, 2014 % MOHD. YASEEN Through: ......Petitioner Mr. S. Bhatnagar, Advocate. VERSUS DIWAN SINGH TOKAS Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA ...... Respondent To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. No.19861/2014 (condonation of delay) 1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 13 days in filing the petition is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. C.M. No.19860/2014 (exemption) 2. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. + RC. REV. No.391/2014 3. This rent control revision petition is filed under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) impugning the judgment of the Rent Controller dated 21.2.2014 by which the Rent Controller has dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant and has decreed the bonafide necessity eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e)...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Shoki Chaudhary Vs. Sh. Mukesh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.121/2014 3rd December , 2014 % SH. SHOKI CHAUDHARY Through: ......Petitioner Ms. Seema Gupta, Adv. VERSUS SH. MUKESH Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Jitender Kumar and Mr. Keshav Yadav, Advocates. 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 tenant impugning the judgments of the courts below; of the Rent Controller dated 16.5.2013 and the Additional Rent Control Tribunal dated 5.12.2013; by which the eviction petition of the landlord filed under Section 14(1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short DRC Act) has been decreed and now the case is fixed for further proceedings to find out as to whether the petitioner/tenant has complied with the order of deposit of rent under Section 15(1) of the DRC Act. It must be noted that in case of first default, and the present is the case of first...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : November 18, 2014 Judgment Pronounced on : December 03, 2014 + CRL.A.456/2014 ANIL KUMAR Represented by: .....Appellant Ms.Nandita Rao, Advocate versus STATE Represented by: .....Respondent Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP Insp.Satish Kumar Sharma and Insp.N.S.Chauhan CRL.A.199/2014 PREM PAL Represented by: .....Appellant Mr.Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate versus STATE Represented by: .....Respondent Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP Insp.Satish Kumar Sharma and Insp.N.S.Chauhan CRL.A.393/2014 ANJU @ SONIA @ BABY Represented by: .....Appellant Mr.Joginder Tuli, Advocate with Mr.Tarun Nanda, Mr.Ashu Kumar Sharma and Ms.Pooja Arora, Advocates versus STATE Represented by: .....Respondent Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP Insp.Satish Kumar Sharma and Insp.N.S.Chauhan CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Process of criminal law was set into motion when at around 7:45 PM on February 08, 2007, DD No.52B, ...
Tag this Judgment!RiyazuddIn Vs. State Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: November 20, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: December 03, 2014 % + CRL.A. 577/2013 RIYAZUDDIN Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Mohit Mathur, Advocate with Mr.Amish Dabas, Mr.Devendra Dedha, Mr.Praman Mathur, Mr.Manoj Pant, Mr.Badar Mehmood, Mr.Pankaj Verma, Ms.Utkarsha Kohli and Ms.Vasudha Datta, Advocates versus STATE NCT OF DELHI Represented by: + ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP with Inspector Lokender Singh, PS Malviya Nagar Ms.Karuna Chhatwal, Advocate with Mr.Shailendra Babbar, Advocate for Board of Homeopathy. CRL.A. 1155/2014 STATE Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Varun Goswami, APP with Inspector Lokender Singh, PS Malviya Nagar. versus RIYAZUDDIN & ORS. Represented by: Crl.A.No.577 of 2013 & 1155 of 2014 ..... Respondents Mr.Mohit Mathur, Advocate with Mr.Amish Dabas, Mr.Devinder Dedha, Mr.Praman Mathur and Ms.Vasudha Data, Advocates for R-1 Page 1 of 11 Mr.Chander M.Maini, Advocate with Mr.Satyam Chaturved...
Tag this Judgment!Smt Indu Anand Vs. Rattan Furniture Stores and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:30. 10.2014 Judgment pronounced on:03. 12.2014 FAO (OS) 68/2014 SMT INDU ANAND ..... Appellant versus RATTAN FURNITURE STORES & ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Sudhanshu Batra, Sr. Advocate with Mr Varun Rajpal, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms Supriya Juneja, Advocate for R-1 & R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.1. The present is an appeal filed under order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as CPC) assailing the order dated 09.12.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court whereby two applications, one (IA No.8605/2013) under Order 12 Rule 6, CPC, for possession/ejectment and the other (IA No.8604/2013 ) under Order 39 Rule 10, CPC, to deposit Rs.1,50,000 per month in court respectively were dismissed in CS(OS) 3569/2012 being a suit for recovery, possess...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- Next ›
- Last »