Delhi Court February 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 14 of about 540 results (0.019 seconds)Sh. Pradeep Mathur Asstt. Law Officer, Cpcb, Delhi, Ghaziabad Vs. Cent ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) Following relief has been sought in this O.A.:- (i). Allow the present Original Application. Declare that the Applicants are entitled to the Pension Scheme and direct the Respondents to extend the benefit of the Pension Scheme as was recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission with interest and all consequential benefits w.e.f. 1995. Set aside Order 26/5/2011; 07/10/2011 and 11/11/2011. Award cost in favour of the Applicants. 2. Facts of the case are that Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) was constituted in September, 1974 as a statutory organization under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. It was entrusted with the powers and functions under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. In 1986 the Fourth Central Pay Commission recommended that the employees of Central Government governed by the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) should be deemed to have come to the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme unless they specifically opt for ...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Kumar Vs. Uma and anr.
Court: Delhi
$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1546/2010 % Judgment dated 24.02.2014 SUNIL KUMAR Through: Mr.V.P.Rana, Advocate ..... Plaintiff versus UMA & ANR. Through: ..... Defendants CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) 1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 20.08.2009. After service defendants had entered appearance. Written statement filed was returned with objections. The objections were not removed and written statement was not brought on record. Since 24.3.2011, the defendants were not represented and they were proceeded ex-parte on 29.09.2011.2. Plaintiff has led ex-parte evidence by filing affidavit by way of evidence of the plaintiff, Sh.Sunil Kumar. The affidavit by way of evidence is exhibited as Ex.PW-1/A. The plaintiff has deposed on the lines of the plaint. As per the evidence of PW-1, he had entered into an agreement to sell with the defendants on 20.08.2009 with respect to purch...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind Kumar Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :20. h FEBRUARY, 2014 DECIDED ON :21. t FEBRUARY, 2014 + CRL.A. 445/2011 ARVIND KUMAR Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Govind Narayan Kaushik, Advocate with Mr.S.P.Verma, Advocate. VERSUS STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Through : ..... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Arvind Kumar (the appellant) is aggrieved by a judgment dated 18.01.2011 in Sessions Case No.66/09 arising out of FIR No.958/04 PS Uttam Nagar by which he was convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and by an order on sentence dated 19.01.2011, was awarded RI for seven years with fine ` 10,000/-.2. Allegations as described in the charge-sheet were that on 05.11.2004 at about 06.30 A.M., Old Palam Road, in front of Prince Electrical, Kakrola, Uttam Nagar, Delhi, the appellant Arvind Kumar inflicted injuries to Shadab by firing at him with a country-made pistol. The Investigating Officer, after recording S...
Tag this Judgment!Upsrtc Vs. Meena and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:21. t February, 2014 % + MAC.APP. No.1273/2012 UPSRTC Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr. Shadab Khan, Advocate. Versus MEENA & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated 14.08.2010 whereby, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.11,48,176/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Corporation submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the respondents are the actual legal heirs of the deceased Gabruddin @ Jafruddin @ Mullah in absence of any documentary proof, in as much as, there is no document on record to show that the deceased Gabruddin @ Jafruddin @ Mullah was Gaffar Khan.3. It...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Harish Dhingra Vs. Ms. Rosy Arora
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.386/2013 % 21st February, 2014 SHRI HARISH DHINGRA ......Appellant Through: Mr. P.P.Ahuja, Adv. VERSUS MS. ROSY ARORA Through: ...... Respondent Mr. J.K.Sharma and Mr. Ajit Singh Arora, Advocates. 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 under Order 43 CPC against the order of the trial court dated 19.8.2013 by which an application under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC filed by the appellant/plaintiff/landlord was dismissed.2. It is settled law that an order under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC directing payment of rent can only be passed if there exists ingredients of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and that there have to be admissions with respect to the rate of rent. Of course, in a particular case, even if there is no express admission, implied admissions in the form of admitted rent agreement or rent receipts can be looked into.3. In the present case, no rent agreemen...
Tag this Judgment!Rajinder Kumar Narang Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on:11. 02.2014 Judgment delivered on:21. 02.2014 + CRL.A. 95/2006 RAJINDER KUMAR NARANG .... Appellant Through: Mr.Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Apurv Lal, Advocate. versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Ms.Fizani Hussain, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 07.2.2006 wherein he had been convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)of the Corruption of Prevention Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 6 months for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the said Act; for the offence under Section 7 of the said Act he has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default of payment of fine to underg...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax- Ii Vs. M/S Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.5086/2013 Reserved on:7. h November, 2013 Date of Decision:21. t February, 2014 % Commissioner of Income Tax- II ....Petitioner Through Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Adv. Versus M/s Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited Respondent Through Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anand Sukumar, Mr. S. Sukumaran And Mr. Bhupesh Kumar, Advs. WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.5003/2013 Commissioner of Income Tax- I ....Petitioner Through Mr. Rohit Madan, Advocate. Versus Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & Anr. Respondents Through Mr. M.S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mayank Negi, Ms. Husnal Syali And Mr. Harkunal Singh, Advs. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJIV KHANNA, J.The present decision will dispose of the writ petitions filed by the Commissioners of Income Tax impugning orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal, in short) on the stay applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Vikramjeet Bhambri Vs. Sanjeev Jindal
Court: Delhi
.* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment pronounced on : February 21, 2014 CM(M) 941/2012 & C.M. No.16405/2013 VIKRAMJEET BHAMBRI Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Shekhar Dasi, Adv. versus SANJEEV JINDAL Through ..... Respondent Mr.K.K.Sharma, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Ashutosh Dubey & Mr.Abhishek Chauhan, Advs. AND + CM(M) 942/2012 & C.M. No.16403/2013 DHARAMBIR BHAMBRI Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Shekhar Dasi, Adv. versus SANJEEV JINDAL Through ..... Respondent Mr.K.K.Sharma, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Ashutosh Dubey & Mr.Abhishek Chauhan, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. I propose to decide both these petitions filed by the petitioners respectively under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by this common order. The petitioners have assailed the order(s) dated 21st July 2012 passed by the learned Trial Court whereby the respective applications filed by the petitioners under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC were dismissed.2. Brief facts for the purpose of adjudi...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Sehgal and anr. Vs. Subhash Chandra Sharma
Court: Delhi
.* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment pronounced on: February 21, 2014 RC. Rev. No.156/2011, C.M. Nos.7718/2012 & 14388/2012 ASHOK SEHGAL & ANR Through ..... Petitioners Mr.Satish Sahai, Adv. with Mr.Rajesh Baweja, Mr.Ankit Baweja and Mr.Ankur Aggarwal, Advs. versus SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA ..... Respondent Through Mr.Siddharth Bambha, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The petitioner by way of the present petition under Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has assailed the eviction order dated 28th January, 2011, passed by Additional Rent Controller, North Delhi District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an eviction petition against the petitioners in respect of a shop forming part of the ground floor of the property No.5-F, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007 (hereinafter referred to as the tenanted shop). It was stated in the eviction petition that t...
Tag this Judgment!State of Nct of Delhi Vs. Banti and Others
Court: Delhi
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 157/2014 STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. LovkeshSawhney, APP for the State. versus BANTI & OTHERS Through: ..... Respondent Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL % ORDER2102.2014 CRL.MA.3063/2014 (delay) in CRL.L.P. 157/2014 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 1266 days in filing of the leave to appeal against the judgment and order on sentence dated 02.06.2010 and 05.06.2010, respectively. The FIR in question was registered in the year 2005 under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The learned counsel for the applicant/State has submitted that the delay in the present case was occasioned due to change in nominated counsel and as the original leave to appeal paper book was misplaced. The learned counsel for the Applicant/State has relied upon State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan, JT2008(10) SC179and submits that the delay sho...
Tag this Judgment!