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.
Wasim @ Passa (In J.C.) Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl.A. 1278/2012 Judgement Reserved on:18. h February, 2014 % Judgement pronounced on:20. h February, 2014. WASIM @ PASSA (IN J.C.) Through: ..... Appellant Mr. M.L. Yadav, Advocate Appellant in person from J/C. versus STATE OF DELHI Through: ..... Respondent Mr.O.P.Saxena APP for the State with Inspector Anand Lakra, P.S. Shastri Park. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA JUDGMENT1 The appellant along with two other persons was tried for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC. The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC vide judgment dated 19th July, 2012 and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.5000/- and in default S.I. for six months vide order dated 23rd July, 2012. Crl.A.1278/2012 convicted for the offence under Section 323/34 IPC and sentenced for a period already undergone.2. The incident had taken place on 29th November, 2009 at 7.50 p.m. in Auto Parking Shahdara...
Mohd. Sahid Vs. the State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
$-6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON :20. h FEBRUARY, 2014 + CRL.A. 1285/2012 MOHD. SAHID ..... Appellant Through : Mr.Sunil Upadhyay, Advocate. versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Through : ..... Respondent Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP. Complainant in person. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.Garg, J.(Open Court) 1. Mohd. Sahid (the appellant) was convicted under Section 307 IPC by a judgment dated 27.09.2012 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.77/11 arising out of FIR No.35/11 PS Ranjit Nagar registered under Section 307 IPC. By an order dated 28.09.2012 he was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine ` 50,000/-.2. During the course of hearing of the appeal, the appellant gave up challenge to the findings on conviction and prayed to modify the sentence order. It was pointed out by the appellants counsel that the victim has settled the dispute with the appellant and he has no objection to release him for the period already undergone. Earlier C...
Vikash Bhardwaj @ Sonu and anr. Vs. State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:17. 01.2014. Judgment delivered on:20.02.2014 CRL.A. 104-105/2006 VIKASH BHARDWAJ @ SONU & ANR Through Versus ..... Appellants Mr.Mithlesh Kumar, Adv. STATE NCT OF DELHI Through + ..... Respondent Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP along with SI J.K. Singh. CRL.A. 143/2006 DHARMENDER KUMAR @ KALLU Through Versus ..... Appellant Mr.Rajeev Kumar Malik, Adv. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI Through ..... Respondent Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP along with SI J.K. Singh. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 This appeal has impugned the judgment and order of sentence dated 28.01.2006 & 30.01.2006 whereby the three appellant Vikas Bhardwaj @ Sonu, Dharmender Kumar @ Kallu and Pramod @ Banti had been convicted under Section 307/34 of the IPC and each of them had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for 3 months. 2 Nominal roll of the appel...
Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the General Secretary, Camba ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on February 20, 2014 + W.P.(C) 660/2014 DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD. Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr. Dinesh Agnani, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Alok Kumar, Mr. Abhayveer Sharma, Mr. Amit Kumar Dadhich, Mr. Amit Agnihotri, Advocates versus THE GENERAL SECRETARY, CAMBATA AVIATION KARAMCHARI UNION (CAKU) AND ANR. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.N.A.Sebastian, Advocate for R1 Mr.Ashok K. Srivastava, Advocate for R2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.(Oral) 1. In this writ petition, the challenge of the petitioner is to the two orders dated June 17, 2013 and December 20, 2013, whereby the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-II (Tribunal, in short) had impleaded the petitioner as a party in the Industrial Dispute and further rejected the application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for its deletion from the array of the parties.2. The respondent No.1 raised an Industrial Dispute which was ref...
Uoi and anr. Vs. Deepak Goswami and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:20. h February, 2014 % + MAC.APP. No.566/2008 UOI & ANR. ..... Appellants Represented by: Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate. Versus DEEPAK GOSWAMI & ORS. Represented by: None. ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 12.02.2007, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the basic principle governing the measure of damages for damage to property in tort as well as in contract is restitutio in integrum.3. Learned counsel submitted that question before the learned Tribunal was that as to what would be reasonable and fair compensation under the circumstances to put the appellants so far as the money can, in the same position, had the accident not occurred.4....
Ved Prakash Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
$~04 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. No....................(number to be given) Date of decision:20. h February, 2014 VED PRAKASH ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Pavan Kumar and Mr. Prithvi Pal, Advocates. versus STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP. Mr. K.S. Rana, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL): We do not think that leave to appeal is required to be filed after amendment and substitution made by way of proviso in Section 372, Code of Criminal procedure, 1973. The Registry will accordingly treat the present petition for leave to appeal as criminal appeal and it will be registered accordingly.2. The complainant Ved Prakash impugns judgment of acquittal dated 21st May, 2013 passed in Sessions Case No.16/2008 arising out of FIR No.1991/2005 police station Sultan Puri under Section 307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.3. The respondents in the present case are Vinay an...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Riya Dutta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
$~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:20. h February, 2014 % + MAC.APP. No.423/2012 & CM No.7097/2012 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate. Versus RIYA DUTTA & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Nilofar Qureshi and Ms.Rehnuma, Advocates for Respondent No.1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) MAC.APP. No.423/2012 1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated 30.11.2011, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation as under:1 Compensation for loss of earning capacity on account of permanent disability NIL2Compensation for the expenses incurred on Medical treatment NIL3Compensation for conveyance expenses and special diet Rs.70,000/- 4 Compensation for pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/- 5 Compensation for loss of amenities of life Rs.1,00,000/- 6 Compensation for physical disfigurement due Rs.2,00,000/to squeezing of right eye and neuralgia and...
Riya DuttA. Vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:20. h February, 2014 % + MAC.APP. No.667 /2013 & CM No.11182/2013 RIYA DUTTA. Represented by: ..... Appellant Ms.Nilofar Qureshi and Ms.Rehnuma, Advocates. Versus NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) MAC.APP. No.667 /2013 1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated 30.11.2011, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation as under:1 Compensation for loss of earning capacity on account of permanent disability NIL2Compensation for the expenses incurred on Medical treatment NIL3Compensation for conveyance expenses and special diet Rs.70,000/- 4 Compensation for pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/- 5 Compensation for loss of amenities of life Rs.1,00,000/- 6 Compensation for physical disfigurement due Rs.2,00,000/to squeezing of right eye and neuralgia...
Disney Enterprises Inc. and anr. Vs. Balraj Muttneja and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:20. h February, 2014. % CS(OS) 3466/2012 + DISNEY ENTERPRISES INC. & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Aditya Kutty, Adv. Versus BALRAJ MUTTNEJA & ORS. Through: None. CORAM :- ..... Defendants HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 The plaintiffs have filed this suit inter alia claiming infringement and dilution of their registered trade marks and violation of their copyrights by the defendants, as well as passing off by the defendants of their goods as those of the plaintiffs, on account of use by the defendants of certain cartoon characters on their goods over which the plaintiffs assert exclusive rights.2. The case of the plaintiffs as reflected in their plaint is thus: I. that the plaintiff No.1 M/s Disney Enterprises Inc. is a corporation organized and existing in the United States of America and is the creator of a number of world-famous characters such as Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse, Donald Duck, Daisy Duck, Winnie the Po...
Sanjeev Kumar Saini, Delhi Vs. Union of India Through General Manager ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
G. George Paracken, Member (J). 1. In this Original Application, challenge of the Applicant against (i) order No.2003/Const/A/Cs/JURL/ JAT/Confdl/S.K. dated 15.4.2006 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing upon him the penalty of compulsory retirement, (ii) order No.XEN/C/D/DAR/ 2005/JAT dated 15.6.2006 whereby the Appellate Authority reduced the aforesaid penalty to that of reduction in time scale of pay by 5 stages to Rs.7100/- per month for a period of 5 years with cumulative effect with the direction that during the currency of penalty no increments will be granted and on expiry of penalty, at the time of re-fixation of pay, increments for the period withheld will not be taken into consideration and (iii) the order No. XEN/C/D/DAR/2005/JAT dated 9.11.2006 passed by the Revisionary Authority communicated through the Disciplinary Authority rejecting his revision petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, vide Memorandum dated 15.1.2003, the Applicant was proceeded agai...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »