Delhi Court February 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.
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vinod Kumar Aggarwal and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:24. h February, 2014 MAC.APP. 796/2011 BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. Rajat Brar, Adv. Versus VINOD KUMAR AGGARWAL & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhary, Adv. for R1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned award dated 31.05.2011, whereby ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for a sum of Rs.30,80,047/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that Ld. Tribunal has erred in considering the actual income of the injured as Rs.1,80,911/-, whereas in the said income, rental income of Rs.67,200/- and Rs.5,711/-as income from other sources was also included. However, the Ld. Tribunal has not deducted the same while granting the compensation.3. Ld. Counsel a...
Asha Nainwal and ors. Vs. Harbir Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:24. h February, 2014 % + MAC.APP. No.25/2010 & CM No.1225/2010 ASHA NAINWAL & ORS. Represented by: ..... Appellants Mr.Sanjeev Mehta, Advocate. Versus HARBIR SINGH & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Abhishek Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No.3/Insurance Company. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 29.11.2007, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant.2. The case of the appellants is that on 25.04.2001 at about 11.30 am, Mr. Pitambar Nainwal was crossing the road in front of Ritz Cinema, Mori Gate. When he reached near Central Patri, a bus bearing No.DL1A5273plying on route No.118 came from behind at a high speed and struck against Pitambar Nainwal, who sustained fatal injuries.3. Respondent No.1, driver of the bus slowed down the bus, but after seeing the public coming t...
Reliance Generla Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Reema and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:24. h February, 2014 MAC.APP. 418/2011 RELIANCE GENERLA INSURANCE CO. LTD ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv. Versus REEMA & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. M.M. Singh, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 03.02.2011, whereby ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for a sum of Rs.14,06,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of the petition till realization of the amount.2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that accident had taken place on 15.08.2010 near Sanjay T Point, Palam More, Dhaula Kuan-Gurgaon Road, when offending vehicle bearing No.DL-1R-Y-2012 was in a static condition and the Maruti Omini Van No.DL-3C-BL-0688 hit the said vehicle.3. Ld. Counsel further submitted that respondent nos. 6 & 7, i.e., driver and owner of the offe...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sonam Choden Tamang and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:24. h February, 2014 + MAC.APP. 144/2013 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Through: Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Adv. ..... Appellant Versus SONAM CHODEN TAMANG & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Adv. for R3/DTC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 05.12.2012, whereby Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for a sum of Rs.24,22,065/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization of the amount.2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued the instant appeal on the sole ground that the injured Sonam Choden Tamang was 38 years of age on the date of accident, i.e., 03.10.2010 and received 30% visual disability in her right eye, however, Ld. Tribunal has assessed 50% functional disability while granting the compensation.3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of ...
R.N. Upadhayay Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:24. 02.2014 + W.P.(C) 1269/2014 R.N. UPADHAYAY ..... PETITIONER versus BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. ..... RESPONDENT ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE: For the petitioner: For the respondent: Mr. Ashok Agarwal and Ms. Kusum Sharma, Advs. Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar with Mr. Amit Kumar and Mr. Vikas Mehta, Advs CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J1 This is a writ petition which seeks to challenge the order dated 20.10.2011 passed by the disciplinary authority as also the order dated 18.5.2012, passed by the appellate authority; which sustained the order of the disciplinary authority.2. The charge against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings was that he had extended undue favours to two firms, both of which were run by his son, i.e. Mr. Pramod Kumar. This, according to the disciplinary authority resulted in violation of the Office Order dated 4.7.1985 and also, impinged upon attributes, such as...
Shri Ramavtar Singh Yadav Vs. Om Veer Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.244/2013and C.M. No.8853/2013(stay) 24th February, 2014 % SHRI RAMAVTAR SINGH YADAV Through: None. ..... Appellant Versus OM VEER SINGH Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Prabhat Kaushik, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed against the order of the trial Court dated 12.3.2013 by which the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the appellant/plaintiff has been dismissed. The application for injunction which has been dismissed by the impugned order was filed in a suit for possession, damages and injunction by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondent/defendant.2. The issue is with respect to the suit property being one shop bearing no.B-1, Gajipur Dairy Farm, Delhi on an area of 80 sq mtrs. Appellant/plaintiff is said to have acquired rights in the immovab...
Meharban (Deceased) Through Lrs. Vs. Gnct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.10/2014 24th February, 2014 % MEHARBAN (DECEASED) Through LRs. ......Appellant Through: Mr. Lalit Kumar Jha, Advocate. VERSUS GNCT OF DELHI & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM7872014 (Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. CM7892014 (for condonation of delay in filing the appeal) CM7902014 (for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal) For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay in filing and refiling the appeal is condoned. Applications are accordingly disposed of. RSA No.10/2014 1. This regular second appeal impugns the judgment of the first appellate court dated 23.4.2013 by which the first appellate court set aside the judgment of trial court dated 20.9.2010. Trial court by its judgment dated 20.9.2010 had decreed the suit for possession filed by the appell...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. M.L.Mahajan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.278/2011 & CM No.11647/11 (stay) 24th February, 2014 % DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ......Appellant Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate. VERSUS M.L.MAHAJAN Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This first appeal is filed against the order of the execution court dated 23.3.2011. Though the appeal is titled as FAO, really the appeal will be an EFA in view of the fact that the impugned decision would have been passed under Order 47 CPC. Registry to re-number this appeal as an EFA.2. The execution court by the impugned order has interpreted the order passed in FAO(OS) 298/1998 by the Division Bench of this Court on 9.10.2009. The Division Bench had reduced interest to 9% per annum simple from 15% per annum simple on the claims which were allowed by the Award and additionally for Claim no.4 which was allowed by the ...
Pcdf Ltd. (Up) and anr. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
$-1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C.689/2009 % Order reserved on:04. h February, 2014. Order pronounced on :24. h February, 2014. PCDF LTD. (UP) & ANR. Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, Adv. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Through: ..... Respondent Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP for State. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA JUDGMENT1 The present petition has been filed by Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy Fedration Limited and Sh. Amlesh Vikram Singh, Ex. M.D. Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited , 29, Park Road, Lukhnow, UP. for quashing of complaint/proceeding in DA No.54/2005 titled as DA Vs. Biman Kumar pending before learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.2. It is alleged that the petitioner is a government undertaking co- operative society (hereinafter called as PCDF) and selling the milk and milk products at Bulandshahar, U.P. The head office is at Lucknow and the Managing Director is also sitting at Lucknow. All the units are independent...
Shiv Hari Agnihotri App/Hq/Northern Railway, New Delhi Vs. Union of In ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
Oral. G. George Paracken, M (J). 1. Applicant was initially appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP for short) in Railway Protection Force (RPF for short) vide order No.2004/Sec(E)/PM-3/7 dated 15.3.2005 and joined on 25.03.2005. He was posted at various places in the North Central Railway (NCR for short). According to him, he was entitled for promotion to the next higher post of Public Prosecutor (PP for short) after 5 years of completion of service as APP. In this regard he has also made a representation to the Inspector General-cum-Security Commissioner, RPF, NCR, Allahabad on 05.04.2010. According to the Applicant, without considering the same, he was transferred to 6th Battalion, Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF for short), Daya Basti, Delhi on administrative ground even though there was no separate cadre of Prosecution Branch in RPSF. After joining the 6th Bn., RPSF, Applicant made representation on 15.10.2010 to promote him as PP. In response to the aforesaid repr...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »