Delhi Court February 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 17 of about 540 results (0.021 seconds)Sh.Ram NaraIn Gupta Vs. Govt of Nct of Delhi and anr
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl.M.C. No.201/2012 Reserved on:21. t January, 2014 Date of Decision:21. t February, 2014 % SH. RAM NARAIN GUPTA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr.Sunil Kumar, Adv. Versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Parveen Bhati, APP for the State Ms. Shobha Gupta , Adv. for MCD CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH JUDGMENT1 The petitioner, Ram Narain Gupta has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `Cr.P.C.) against the impugned order dated 29.8.2011 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (East District), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi whereby the petitioner has been summoned in a challan under Sections 417/430 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.2. Briefly stating, the facts of the present case are that on 25.7.2011 the respondent/MCD issued challan under Sections 417/430 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 against the petitioner on th...
Tag this Judgment!United Decoratives Pvt Ltd Vs. DolphIn Footwear Pvt Ltd
Court: Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:21. 02.2014 + CO.PET.173/2013 UNITED DECORATIVES PVT LTD ..... Petitioner versus DOLPHIN FOOTWEAR PVT LTD .... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Mithilesh Kumar with Mr Sanjeev Goyal. For the Respondent: Counsel (presence not given) CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J (ORAL) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 433 (e) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) alleging that the respondent has been unable to pay its admitted dues to the petitioner. The respondent contends that no amount is payable to the petitioner and on the contrary certain amounts are recoverable from the petitioner on account of defective goods supplied by the petitioner.2. The only controversy that needs to be addressed in the present case is whether the defence raised by the respondent is bonafide or a sham defence.3. Briefly stated, the facts ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Farooq Vs. Smt. Mubassara and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.107/2013 21st February, 2014 % MOHD. FAROOQ Through: ......Appellant Mr. Maroof Ahmad, Advocate. VERSUS SMT. MUBASSARA AND ANR. Through: ...... Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugning the judgment of the first appellate court dated 16.3.2013 by which the first appellate court set aside the judgment of the trial court dated 23.11.2011 which had dismissed the suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the respondents/plaintiffs. The appellate court has decreed the suit for possession and mesne profits against the appellant/defendant/tenant.2. The only issue which was to be decided was as to whether the appellant/defendant was a licencee or was a tenant as contended by him. The first appellate court has referred to the fact that neither there was...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Chand Vs. Ram Nath Deceased Through Lrs.
Court: Delhi
12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.7/2012 21st February, 2014 % PREM CHAND Through: ......Appellant Mr. D.V. Nanda, Advocate. VERSUS RAM NATH DECEASED Through LRs. ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Anjum Kumar, Mr. Vivek Malhotra, Advocates CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This regular second appeal has been filed impugning the judgment of the first appellate court dated 14.7.2011 whereby the first appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2005 passed by the trial court decreeing the suit for declaration and injunction (Suit No.216/1976) filed by the appellant/plaintiff. Disputes pertain to rights in residential house bearing No.198/29, Sri Ram Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. When the suit was filed disputes were between the appellant/plaintiff and his father Ram Nath. Sh. Ram Nath expired during the pendency of the suit leaving behind a Will dated 10.8.1976...
Tag this Judgment!Alex Jewellery Pvt Ltd and ors Vs. Rolex Sa
Court: Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:21. 02.2014 FAO(OS) 83/2014 & CM No.2601/2014 ALEX JEWELLERY PVT LTD & ORS .... Appellants versus ROLEX SA ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr P.R. Aggarwal and Mr Mohit Sharma : Mr Sanjay Jain, Senior Advocate with Ms Charu Mehta, Ms Ruchi Jain, and Mr Sarfaraz Ahmad CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, ACJ (ORAL) 1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.10.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in I.A. No.16257/2013 in CS (OS) No.41/2008. The appellants herein were defendants before the learned Single Judge. They had filed the said IA No.16257/2013 under Order IX Rule 7 CPC seeking the setting aside of the order dated 30.11.2012 passed earlier by the learned Single Judge whereby the said defendants were directed to be proceeded ex pa...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Vijay Lakshmi and ors. Vs. Smt. Ravinder Seth
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.218/2013 21st February, 2014 % SMT. VIJAY LAKSHMI & ORS. Through: ......Appellants Mr. Shiv Charan Garg, Advocate with Mr. Imran Khan, Advocate. VERSUS SMT. RAVINDER SETH Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Sumesh Gandhi, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment of the first appellate court dated 6.5.2013 by which the first appellate Court set aside the judgment of the trial Court dated 16.7.2007 dismissing the suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the respondent/plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff was the mother-in-law. The appellant/defendant is the daughter-in-law.2. The appellate court has dismissed the suit on the following main grounds:(i) A daughter-in-law has no right to live in the house of the mother-in-law inasmuch as the house of the mother-in-law is not a shared household under ...
Tag this Judgment!Seritec Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Computer Peripheral Solutions
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.121/2013 21st February, 2014 % SERITEC ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. ......Appellant Through: Mr. Bibakhar Misra, Advocate. VERSUS M/S. COMPUTER PERIPHERAL SOLUTIONS ...... Respondent Through: Mr. C.S. Parashar, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed impugning the judgments of the courts below by which the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for recovery of money for computer goods supplied has been dismissed.2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff had supplied goods to the respondent/defendant. This aspect is not disputed by either of the parties. It is also not disputed that respondent/defendant paid some amounts but an amount of Rs.1,99,355/- was due as balance. Whereas the case of the appellant was that this amount was not paid, the case of the respondent was that this amount was paid and the receipt in ...
Tag this Judgment!Lt.Col.(Retd.)munishwar Dev Bakshi Vs. Parshottam Dass Bakshi and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No.879/2004 LT.COL.(RETD.)MUNISHWAR DEV BAKSHI ..... Plaintiff Through Mr. D. V. Khatri, Adv. versus PARSHOTTAM DASS BAKSHI & ORS. ..... Defendant Through Mr. Rajesh Tyagi for D-1(1to5) Mr.Hari, Adv. with Mr.Sanjeev Tyagi, Adv. for D-2to 6. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR ORDER % 21.02.2014 I.A. No.14534/2012 (condonation of delay) 1. By this application filed under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1963 and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC), the applicant/defendant No.1 seeks condonation of delay of 8 days in filing the accompanying Review Application.2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the accompanying review application is condoned.3. Application stands disposed of. Review App. 443/2012 1. By this review application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 and Section 151 of CPC, the applicant/defe...
Tag this Judgment!All India Institute of Medical Sciences and anr. Vs. Ram Kishore and a ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1188/2014 Date of decision:21. t February, 2014 % ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr.Sumit Babbar and Mr.Sahil S.Chauhan, Advocates for Mr.Mehmood Pracha, SLC. versus RAM KISHORE & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr.A.P.Singh, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J.(Oral) C.M.No.2481/2014 (for exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 1188/2014 & C.M.No.2480/2014 (for stay) 1. The writ petitioner assails the order dated 26th November, 2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal accepting the O.A.No.2047/2012 which was filed by the respondent challenging the order of the disciplinary authority dated 15th November, 2011 as well the appellate authoritys order dated 9th May, 2012 whereby the respondents appeal was rejected.2. It appears that the respondent was subjected to...
Tag this Judgment!National Council of Education Research and TrainIn Vs. Parash Ram and ...
Court: Delhi
$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1183/2014 Date of decision:21. t February, 2014 % NATIONAL COUNCIL OF EDUCATION RESEARCH AND TRAINING ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Anand Nandan, Advocate versus PARASH RAM & ORS. Through: ..... Respondent Mr.Shankar Raju and Mr.Nilansh Gaur, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J.(Oral) Caveat 185/2014 Since the Caveator/respondents has been represented through counsel and has been heard, the caveat stands discharged. C.M.No.2472/2014 (for exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 1183/2014 & C.M.No.2471/2014 (for stay) 1. The writ petitioner assails the order dated 6th November, 2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing the O.A.No.1007/2013 which was filed by the respondents.2. It is noteworthy that O.A.No.1007/2013 was filed by seven persons (including the respondents herein) namely, Mr.Parash Ram, M...
Tag this Judgment!