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.
Ajay Kumar and Anr. Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI R-218 & 218A + CRL.A. 1124 of 2010 AJAY KUMAR & ANR. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Rakesh Dudeja and Mr. Raj Kumar Tomar, Advocates for A-1 Mr. Mohammad Faraz, Amicus Curiae for A-2 versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP WITH CRL.A. 71 of 2012 STATE (GOVT OF NCT DELHI) ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP versus BANTI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Mohammad Faraz, Amicus Curiae for R-1. Mr. Rakesh Dudeja and Mr. Raj Kumar Tomar, Advocates for R-2 CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR % ORDER2312.2014 1. Criminal Appeal (Crl. A.) No.1124 of 2010 is by Ajay Kumar (Appellant No.1) (Accused No.2) and Banti (Appellant No.2) (Accused No.1) against the judgment dated 28th July 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in SC No.139 of 2007 convicting both the Appellants for the offences under Sections 323/341 and 363/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the order on sentence dated 4th August 2010...
M/S Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. (India Tv) Vs. Crazi Mobapps an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order delivered on:23. d December, 2014 % + CS(OS) 4037/2014 M/S INDEPENDENT NEWS SERVICE PVT. LTD. (INDIA TV) ..... Plaintiff Through Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sudeep Chatterjee, Ms. Jaya Mandela, Mr. Karan Bajaj and Ms. Rukma George, Advs. versus CRAZI MOBAPPS & ORS Through ..... Defendants None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral) I.A. No.26291/2014 This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from filing original documents and to file dim documents with insufficient left side margin. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed, subject to the same being produced at the time of admission/denial of the documents. The application is disposed of. I.A. No.26292/2014 (U/s 149 CPC) Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff states that she would be filing the Court fee within one week. In view of the statement made by the learned Senior co...
M/S Arjuman Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Govt of Nct of Delhi and O ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2014
$~ 19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:23. 12.2014 W.P.(C) 6619/2014 & CM157392014 M/S ARJUMAN FARMS & RESORTS PVT. LTD. .... Petitioner versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner For the Respondent Nos.1&2 For the Respondent No.3 : Mr B.S. Maan with Mr Vishal Maan : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Singh : Mr dhanesh Relan with Mr Arush Bhandari CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. The learned counsel for respondent nos. 1&2 has handed over the counter affidavit on their behalf. The same is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file the rejoinder affidavit and would be relying on the averments made in the writ petition.2. The petitioner seeks the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2...
Ram Kala and Ors Vs. Union of India and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2014
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:23. 12.2014 W.P.(C) 2780/2014 RAM KALA & ORS .... Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Ravinder Sethi, Sr Advocate with Mr Rajiv Kr Ghawana, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr Ruchir Mishra and Mr Mukesh Kr Tiwari No.1/UOI. For the Respondent Nos.2 & 3. : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi. For the Respondent No.4/DDA : Mr Arun Birbal and Mr Sanjay Singh. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE I. S. MEHTA JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. In this writ petition, the point urged is that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed because of the non-compliance of the mandatory condition of making the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within the stipulated period of one year from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the said Act.2. The petitioners in the p...
Commissioner of Police, Delhi Vs. Sh. Satish Chander
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % Date of Decision:23. 12.2014 W.P.(C) 2951/2013 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon & Mr. Yogesh Saini, Advocates. versus SH. SATISH CHANDER Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Jayant Pawar, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI VIPIN SANGHI, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. The petitioner Commissioner of Police, has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the order dated 04.01.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT/ Tribunal) in O.A. No.3781/2011. By the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the Original Application preferred by the respondent/ applicant and set aside the orders dated 24.08.2011 and 02.09.2011 passed by the petitioner. By these orders, the request of the applicant to withdraw the notice for voluntary retirement was rejected. The Tribunal has also reinstated the applicant in service with all co...
Praleen Chopra Vs. M/S Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:23. 12.2014 W.P.(C) 8963/2014 PRALEEN CHOPRA ..... Petitioner versus M/S DEWAN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION PVT. LTD. & ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Mr Arjun Singh Bawa with Mr Ritin Rai. For the Respondents : CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J (ORAL) CM210512014 As the matter has been taken up for hearing, the early hearing application is infructuous and is disposed of. CM210522014 For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed. CM204942014 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 8963/2014 & CM No.20495/2014 1. The petitioner impugns an order dated 26.09.2014 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (West), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter the Act) whereby a recei...
Arn Infrastructure India Ltd. Vs. State and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2014
$~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:23. d December, 2014 + CRL.M.C. 1396/2013 ARN INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Advocate. versus STATE & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Karan Singh, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.P.VAISH VED PRAKASH VAISH, J.(ORAL) 1. By this petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), the petitioner assails order dated 30.01.2013 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka District Court, Delhi whereby the petitioner has been summoned for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act, for short).2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that respondent No.2 herein filed a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act against the petitioner on the allegations, inter alia, that the complainant had booked unit/ shop of 410 sq. ft. in the project Globus Residency launched by the p...
M/S.Roshinlal Gupta and Sons Vs. Presiding officer and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2014
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:23. d December, 2014. % + W.P.(C) No.46/2003 M/S.ROSHINLAL GUPTA & SONS ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Singh, Adv. Versus PRESIDING OFFICER & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ramakant Tripathi, Adv. for R-2. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the Award dated 23rd March, 2002 of the Labour Court-X, Delhi in I.D. No.2258/95 (old I.D.No.381/88) answering the following reference:Whether the services of Sh. Nawal Kishore have been terminated illegally and / or unjustifiably and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?. in favour of the respondent no.2 workman Sh. Nawal Kishore and directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent no.2 workman with full back wages.2. On 3rd January, 2003, notice of the petition was issued to the respondent no.2 workman and vide ex parte order the operation of the Awa...
Rohtash Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2014
$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:23. d December, 2014 % + CRL.M.C. 2182/2014 ROHTASH Through: ..... Petitioner Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate. versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Navin Sharma, APP for the State with SI Balbeer Singh, P.S.Shahdara. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.P.VAISH VED PRAKASH VAISH, J.(ORAL) 1. By this petition filed under Section 482 read with Section 427 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), the petitioner seeks the sentences in case FIR No.194/2004 under Sections 392/394/397/411/34 IPC and FIR No.65/2009 under Sections 308/379/324/34 IPC both registered at P.S. Shahdara, Delhi to run concurrently.2. The concise facts of the present case are that the petitioner was convicted in case FIR No.65/2009 under Sections 324 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC by learned District Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, In-charge, North East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi vide judgment dated 19.05.2012 ...
Ion Exchange (India) Ltd. Vs. Panasonic Electric Works Co. Ltd. and An ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:23. d December, 2014. + ARB.P. 662/2014 ION EXCHANGE (INDIA) LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Amey Nargolkar and Mr. Aaditya Vijaykumar, Advocates. Versus PANASONIC ELECTRIC WORKS CO. LTD. AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 11(6)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) impleading Panasonic Electric Works Co. Ltd., Japan (hereinafter called Panasonic Japan) as respondent No.1 and Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called Panasonic India) as respondent No.2 thereto, and pleading: (i) that Panasonic Japan through the Panasonic India, in the year 2010, approached the petitioner to discuss the possibility of a business venture / relationship and alliance; (ii) that during the course of negotiation, a Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement dated 6th December, 2010 was executed between the petitioner and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »