Delhi Court December 2014 Judgments
Mohit Sareen Vs. State and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2014
$~51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5491/2014 MOHIT SAREEN Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Satya Narayan, Advocate with petitioners in person. versus STATE & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. P.K. Mishra, APP for the State with SI Shashi Kumar, PS Moti Nagar. R-2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral) Crl. M.A. 18729/2014 (for exemption) Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed off. CRL.M.C. 5491/2014 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.222/2013 registered under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC at Police Station Moti Nagar on 6th July, 2013 on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.2. Issue notice. Mr. P.K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor enters appearance and accepts notice on behalf of the State/respondent No.1.3. Petitioner as well as complainant/respondent No.2-Bal ...
Tag this Judgment!Centravis Production Ukraine Vs. Gallium Industries Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:05. 11.2014 Judgment delivered on:02. 12.2014 % + EX. P. 275/2011 CENTRAVIS PRODUCTION UKRAINE ..... Decree Holder Versus GALLIUM INDUSTRIES LIMITED ..... Judgement Debtor Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Decree Holder: Mr Amit Bansal, Ms Manisha Singh & Ms Senjul Khanna, Advocates. For the Judgement Debtor: Mr Kewal Singh Ahuja, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.EA(OS) 134/2012 (Objections by judgement debtor) 1. These are objections filed by the judgement debtor. By these objections the prayer made is that the execution petition No.275/2011 filed by the decree holder to enforce the foreign award dated 31.03.2011, which has morphed into a decree, be dismissed. 1.1 By order dated 09.05.2012, both the execution petition, as well as the objections filed by the judgement debtor represented by the captioned application, were disposed of in view of the fact that the aforementioned a...
Tag this Judgment!Tarun Vikram Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:2. d December, 2014 + CRL.A. 1336/2011 TARUN VIKRAM Through: ..... Appellant Mr. K. Singhal with Mr. Shashi Mohan, Advocates versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. M.N. Dudeja, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 26.09.2011 and order on sentence 27.09.2011 by which the appellant was convicted under Sections 307 of Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further six (6) months simple imprisonment. The appellant was also given the benefit of the provisions of Section 428 of Cr.P.C.2. Facts germane to the Prosecution case succinctly stated are as follows:On 17.09.2004 at about 12:30 AM, Investigating Officer SI Rajnikant received DD No.3A Ex. PW18A to the effect that someone ...
Tag this Judgment!Jasvinder Singh and Ors Vs. Lovkush Giri and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2014
$~A-11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:2. 12.2014 + MAC.APP. 884/2011 JASVINDER SINGH & ORS ..... Appellants Through Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC with Ms.Shinjan Jain, Advocate versus LOVKUSH GIRI & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr.K.L.Nandwani, Advocate for R-3. Mr.J.S.Arora, Advocate for R-4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) 1. By the present appeal the appellant seeks to impugn the Award dated 18.3.2011 and seeks enhancement of compensation.2. The brief facts are that on 03.10.2006 Shri Harjeet Singh while working in front of import and export examination area, ICD, Tughlakadbad, Okhla Phase-I, New Delhi was hit by a crane driven by respondent No.1. On account of the accident he suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.3. Based on the evidence on record the Tribunal concluded that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1.4. On compensation a total compensation of Rs.9,50,000/- was aw...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Krishan Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on July 24, 2014 Judgment delivered on December 02, 2014 + ITA502000 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Versus + SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR ..... Respondent ITA692004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Versus M/S SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LTD... Respondent + ITA4572004 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Versus M/S SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LTD... Respondent + ITA4602004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant versus M/S SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LTD... Respondent + ITA5242004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant versus M/S SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LTD... Respondent + ITA5762008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI..... Appellant versus SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LTD. Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Rohit Madan, Sr. Standing Counsel for appellant/revenue. Mr. Ajay Vohra,Sr.Adv. with Ms Kavita Jha and Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advocates for respondent/assessee. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'...
Tag this Judgment!K Sridharan and Ors. Vs. State of Nct of Delhi and Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2014
$~53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5455/2014 K SRIDHARAN & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. G. Sivabala Murugan, Mr. Anis Mohammad, Advocates with petitioners in person versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State with SI Hasrat Ali, CAW Cell, East Delhi, PS Mayur Vihar Mr. Vineet Mehta & Mr. Ankur Gupta, Adv. for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(ORAL) CRL.M.A. 18631/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed off. CRL.M.A. 18632/2014 For the reasons stated in the application, the delay, which is stated to be of 34 days in re-filing the petition, is condoned. The application stands disposed off. CRL.M.C. 5455/2014 1. This petition has been moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No.315/2012 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Mayur ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajinder Kumar Mittal Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,deihi-I
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2014
$~1 to 3. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CENTRAL EXCISE ACT CASE No.102/2014 Date of decision:2. d December, 2014 RAJINDER KUMAR MITTAL ..... Petitioner Through Mr. C. Hari Shankar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harsh Gopalia, Advocate. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,DEIHI-I ..... Respondent Through Mr. Rahul Kaushik & Ms. Bhuvneshwari Pathak, Advocates. CENTRAL EXCISE ACT CASE No.103/2014 M/S PARVEEN TOBACCO CO PVT LTD. ..... Petitioner Through Mr. C. Hari Shankar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harsh Gopalia, Advocate. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-I, ..... Respondent Through Mr. Rahul Kaushik & Ms. Bhuvneshwari Pathak, Advocates. CENTRAL EXCISE ACT CASE No.104/2014 PARVEEN KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through Mr. C. Hari Shankar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harsh Gopalia, Advocate. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,DEIHI-I ..... Respondent Through Mr. Rahul Kaushik & Ms. Bhuvneshwari Pathak, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWA...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Gulshan Arora Vs. M/S Pomey Plastic Works (a Partnership Firm)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2014
* + 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!Competition Commission of India Vs. Jcb India Ltd. and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA7152014 Pronounced on:02. 12.2014 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA ... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar, Mr. Abhimanyu Chopra, Mr. Nitish Sharma & Mr. Vidur Mohan, Advocates Versus JCB INDIA LTD. & ORS. ... Respondents Through: Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Advocates with Mr.G.R. Bhatia, Ms. Kanika Nayar, Ms. Nidhi Singh Prakash, Ms.Deeksha Manchanda and Ms.Tripti Malhotra, Advocates for Respondents. Mr. Udayan Jain, Adv. for Bull Machines (P) Ltd./Informant. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW JUDGMENT : MS.G.ROHINI, CHIEF JUSTICE Three interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.2244/2014 are assailed in this appeal filed by the Competition Commission of India (for short CCI).2. The essential facts of the case are as under:Bull Machines Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No.2 herein) filed information before CCI under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Sandeep Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2386/2012 Reserved on :11. 11.2014 Pronounced on :02. 12.2014 IN THE MATTER OF: SANDEEP KUMAR SINGH ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Yudhister Bhardwaj, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through : Mr. M.P. Singh, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Rajat Arora, Advocate for R-2. None for respondent No.3 CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present petition praying inter alia for quashing of the entire selection process undertaken by the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) on behalf of the respondent No.2/Bank of India, pursuant to the advertisement issued on 15.7.2011. He has also questioned the selection of the respondent No.3 in the OBC category to the post of Law Officer Scale-I and prays that he be appointed with the respondent No.2/Bank in place of the said respondent.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/Bank had issued an advertiseme...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- Next ›
- Last »