Delhi Court December 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 96 of about 1,089 results (0.022 seconds)Gajendra Singh Vs. Public Enterprise Selection Board and ors
Court: Delhi
$~1. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7576/2014 and CM APPL. 17868-17869/2014 GAJENDRA SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Anand Srivastava and Mr. Kshitij Khera, Advocates versus s PUBLIC ENTERPRISE SELECTION BOARD & ORS..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ankit Jain, Ms. Sara Sundaram and Ms. Chitra Sharma, Advocates for R-2/GAIL. Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC with Mr. Ajay Kalra, Advocate for R-3/UOI. Mr. Bhupender Chauhan, Advocate for R-4. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI ORDER0312.2014 % 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition praying inter alia for issuing a writ of certiorari, for quashing the appointment of the respondent No.4 as the Director (Business Development) in the respondent No.2/GAIL and further, for directing the respondent No.1/PESB and the respondent No.2/GAIL to adopt the recommendations made by the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (initially impleaded as responden...
Tag this Judgment!Abhishek Chauhan Vs. Krishan Lal Dhooper
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: December 03, 2014 + RSA3582014 & C.M.No.19323/2014 ABHISHEK CHAUHAN Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Nischal Kr. Neeraj, Advocate versus KRISHAN LAL DHOOPER Through: ..... Respondent Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % The concurrent findings of both the courts below are that respondent-plaintiff is entitled to decree for possession of the suit property. Trial court vide order of 6th June, 2012 has suo moto exercised powers under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC while noting that the rent of the subject premises is more than `3,500/- per month and notice of the suit for possession has been already received by defendant and so, respondent-plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession of the suit premises. The First Appellate Court has found trial courts order of 6th June, 2012 to be cryptic one and vide detailed order, the First Appellate Court has maintained the decree for possession while holding that appellantdefend...
Tag this Judgment!Praveen Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:10. 10.2014 Date of Decision:03. 12.2014 + WP (C) No.1028 of 2014 PRAVEEN KUMAR Through: ...... Petitioner Mr. Praveen Swarup, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Malaya Kumar Chand & Mr. S.N. Kaul, Advs. for R-1 to 3. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI, J.1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of the letter/order dated 23.11.2013 issued by respondent No.4, whereby the offer to him of provisional appointment to the post of Sub Inspector/Exe in CISF was withdrawn. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents for conducting his basic training for the said post as well as for fixation of his seniority to just below the person who was immediately above him in the select list as was declared selected for the post of Sub Inspe...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Pal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* 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!Ambrose Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 9 of 2014 & CRL. (B) 11 of 2014 AMBROSE ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Amicus Curiae (DHCLSC) with Appellant produced from Judicial custody. versus DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER0312.2014 Introduction 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 9 th July 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special JudgeNDPS/ South District, Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.46A/00 convicting the Appellant, Ambrose, for the offence under Section 21 (c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) for having been found in possession of 19 kg of heroin and the order on sentence dated 20th July 2013 whereby for the aforesaid offence he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of 10 years and a fine of Rs 1 lakh and in default, to under simple impriso...
Tag this Judgment!Gandharav Saini Vs. Pushpa Sharma and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:09. 05.2014 Date of Decision: _03.12.2014 + Ex.F.A. No.14 of 2009 GANDHARAV SAINI Through: ...... Appellant Mr. Virender K. Singh, Adv. versus PUSHPA SHARMA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. J.K. Sharma & Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advs. for R-1. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI, J.1. In this Execution First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the appellant impugns the order of the Executing Court dated 14.10.2009 by which the objections filed by respondent No.1 herein, namely Smt. Pushpa Sharma (objector) were allowed and the judgment and decree dated 23.1.2006 was held to be not binding upon her. As a consequence thereof, possession of the suit premises, being Shop No.P-4, Connaught Place, New Delhi (suit premises) was directed to be restored to the objector.2. The appellants case is that Shri V.B. Sharma, the husband of respondent No.1 was a tenant in the suit premises. Upon his demi...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Jac Air Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pramod Kumar
Court: Delhi
$~45 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on 3rd December, 2014 + W.P.(C) 8454/2014 M/S JAC AIR SERVICES PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Pramod Kumar Sharma and Mr. Manish Kumar Sharma, Advocates. Versus PRAMOD KUMAR Represented by: None. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT ..... Respondent SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) CM No.19520/2014 (for exemption) Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application is allowed. W.P.(C) 8454/2014 1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner/Establishment has assailed the award dated 24.03.2014, whereby while setting aside the order of suspension and dismissal dated 18.02.2010 passed by the petitioner/Establishment, the learned Tribunal directed reinstatement of the respondent/workman with directions to the petitioner/Establishment to conduct a fresh inquiry after observing all the principles of natural justice and giving the workman fair and proper opportunity to represent himself and to d...
Tag this Judgment!Shikhar Tyagi Vs. Uoi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: December 03, 2014 + LA.APP. 382/2014 SHIKHAR TYAGI Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Gagan Gupta, Advocate versus UOI ..... Respondent Through: Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % C.M.No.19868-69/2014 Allowed subject to all just exceptions. C.M.No.19870/2014 (u/S5of the Limitation Act, 1963 r/w Section151 CPC) For reasons stated in the application, delay of 39 days in refiling the accompanying appeal is condoned. Application is disposed of. C.M.No.19867/2014 (under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 & under Section 151 CPC) There is exceptionally inordinate delay of 5 years in preferring LA.APP No.282/2014 Page 1 the accompanying appeal by the applicant. The Reference Court had awarded compensation for the land of the applicant in Village- Burari, Delhi in the year 2008. The reasons put-forth for the delay occasioned is that the mother of applicant was pursuing the matter pertaining to enhancement of co...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Gulshan Arora Vs. M/S Pomey Plastic Works (a Partnership Firm)
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RC.REV.No.211/2014 2nd December, 2014 % SH. GULSHAN ARORA Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Manuj Aggarwal, Advocate. VERSUS M/S POMEY PLASTIC WORKS (A PARTNERSHIP FIRM) ...... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. Though this petition is filed under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) however it ought to have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India since it is a petition filed against ordering of fresh summons upon the respondent/tenant and a revision can be filed under Section 25B(8) of the Act only against the dismissal of a leave to defend. Therefore, the present petition is treated as a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner/landlord impug...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Kawaljeet Singh Ahuja Vs. Sh. Sukhdev Singh Ahuja
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.M.(M) No.1065 /2014 and C.M.Nos.19808/2014 (stay) & 19809/2014 (Exemption) 02nd December, 2014 % SH. KAWALJEET SINGH AHUJA ......Petitioner Through: Mr.K.Sunil, Advocate. VERSUS SH. SUKHDEV SINGH AHUJA 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 orders of the trial court dated 12.11.2014 and 26.8.2014 by which the trial court has closed the evidence of the petitioner/defendant and has fixed the case for final arguments.2. The respondent/plaintiff is the father of the petitioner/defendant and is today about 90 years of age. The subject suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff/father about four years back seeking possession of the suit property being the second floor of property no.33/7, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi-60.3. The impugned orders show that the petitioner/defendant...
Tag this Judgment!