Delhi Court February 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 23 of about 540 results (0.022 seconds)Shri Om Parkash Sharma Vs. Shri Krishan
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.41/1987 19th February, 2014 % SHRI OM PARKASH SHARMA Through: ......Appellant Ms. Shalini Kapoor, Advocate with Ms. Promil Seth, Ms. Kriti Arora, Advocates. VERSUS SHRI KRISHAN Through: ...... Respondent Mr. S.K. Dubey, Advocate with Mr. Rajmangal Kumar, 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 impugned judgment of the first appellate court dated 22.5.1987 by which the first appellate court set aside the judgment of the trial court dated 1.10.1981. Trial court by its judgment dated 1.10.1981 had decreed the suit for possession of the appellant/plaintiff against the respondent/defendant with respect to the suit property bearing no.25/59 (old no.25/50), Shakti Nagar, Delhi admeasuring approximately 50 sq yds. RSA No.41/1987 Trial court held that the Page 1 of 10 appellant/plaintiff is the owner of the suit...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Illyas Vs. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:16. h January, 2014 Pronounced on:19. h February, 2014 + CRL.A. 728/2010 MOHD. ILLYAS Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv. with Mr. Shiv Kumar Dwivedi, Adv. versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. SI Kapil Kumar, PS GTB Enclave. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL JUDGMENT G.P. MITTAL, J.1. For detailed order see Criminal Appeal No.716/2010, Salam Kaviraj @ Chuha V. State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi) pronounced today. (G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE (SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE FEBRUARY19 2014 vk...
Tag this Judgment!Salam Kaviraj @ Chuha Vs. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:16. h January, 2014 Pronounced on:19. h February, 2014 + CRL.A. 716/2010 SALAM KAVIRAJ @ CHUHA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv. with Mr. Shiv Kumar Dwivedi, Adv. versus + STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. SI Kapil Kumar, PS GTB Enclave. CRL.A. 721/2010 ASIF @ NAEEM Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advocate versus + STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. SI Kapil Kumar, PS GTB Enclave. CRL.A. 728/2010 MOHD. ILLYAS Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv. with Mr. Shiv Kumar Dwivedi, Adv. versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. SI Kapil Kumar, PS GTB Enclave. + CRL.A. 981/2010 MIRAJ @ JAKIR Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for ...
Tag this Judgment!Ministry of External Affairs Vs. D.K.Pandey
Court: Delhi
#40-42 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3406/2012 & CM APPL. 7218/2012 UNION OF INDIA Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Senior Advocate with Mr. P.R. Choudhary, Advocate versus R JAYACHANDRAN Through ..... Respondent None AND + W.P.(C) 8915/2011 & CM APPLs. 20128/2011, 20162/2012 MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Senior Advocate with Mr. P.R. Choudhary, Advocate versus D.K.PANDEY Through ..... Respondent None AND + W.P.(C) 410/2012 & CM APPL. 871/2012 MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Senior Advocate with Mr. P.R. Choudhary, Advocate versus K.K.DHARMAN Through W.Ps.(C) 3406/2012, 8915/2011, 410/2012 ..... Respondent Date of Decision :19. h February, 2014 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. Present batch of writ petitions has been filed challenging the orders of the Central Information Commission (for short CIC) whereby the petitioner-Ministry of Exte...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. R Jayachandran
Court: Delhi
#40-42 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3406/2012 & CM APPL. 7218/2012 UNION OF INDIA Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Senior Advocate with Mr. P.R. Choudhary, Advocate versus R JAYACHANDRAN Through ..... Respondent None AND + W.P.(C) 8915/2011 & CM APPLs. 20128/2011, 20162/2012 MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Senior Advocate with Mr. P.R. Choudhary, Advocate versus D.K.PANDEY Through ..... Respondent None AND + W.P.(C) 410/2012 & CM APPL. 871/2012 MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Senior Advocate with Mr. P.R. Choudhary, Advocate versus K.K.DHARMAN Through W.Ps.(C) 3406/2012, 8915/2011, 410/2012 ..... Respondent Date of Decision :19. h February, 2014 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. Present batch of writ petitions has been filed challenging the orders of the Central Information Commission (for short CIC) whereby the petitioner-Ministry of Exte...
Tag this Judgment!Karamvir Singh, Executive Engineer (Civil), New Delhi Vs. Union of Ind ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
P.K. Basu, Member (A). 1. This OA has been filed seeking relief to quash and set aside memorandum and charge sheet dated 15.02.2013 issued against the applicant by the respondents. The background of the case is that the applicant is an Assistant Engineer in the respondent-organization and initially a complaint was made against him directly in the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) by a contractor named Gurnam Singh Chaddha, which was referred to respondent no.2 vide letter dated 2.09.2004 of the CVC. After internal examination, the department issued charge memorandum dated 28.03.2008 which contained certain serious charges against the applicant. The applicant challenged this memorandum dated 28.03.2008 in the Tribunal through OA No.856/2008 pleading that the charge sheet is not only delayed (as the incident related to 2002) and malicious but also in violation of law for issuance of such charge sheet. This Tribunal heard the matter at length and passed a detailed order dated 17.02.2009 ...
Tag this Judgment!Vikas Fire Operator, Haryana and Others Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Thro ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Ashok Kumar, Member (A) 1. The present OAs bearing Nos.807 of 2013, 808 of 2013 and 809 of 2013 have been heard together on the request of counsel of both sides since the impugned action terminating the services of the applicants, non-disposal of their appeals and the reliefs sought are the same. We are, therefore, disposing of these three OAs by a common order. For the purposes of facts, grounds and pleading of both parties, we have relied on OA No.807of 2013 as the leading case. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of this OA are that the applicant was appointed as Fire Operator on 24.6.2008 (Annexure-L) and put on probation for a period of two years. After appointment, the respondent forwarded a letter for verification of the driving license of the applicant to the Licensing Authority, Transport Department, Agra, UP. On 21.1.2009, the concerned Licensing Authority informed that the driving license of the applicant was duly verified from the office record and was found to be true and correct...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Vishnu Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Delhi-iii, Gurgaon
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
D.N. Panda, J. 1. The appellant is absent. There is no adjournment application. Notice has been returned back with postal remark left.2. In absence of the appellant, record was thoroughly examined with the assistance of Revenue. 3. Revenue supports the adjudication. 4. Export of rice was made by two shipping bills No. J-90804089 and J-908004090 dated 24.12.08 declaring that as of Basmati Rice valued at Rs. 30,60,256/- each totaling to Rs. 61,20,512/- in FOB and 96.6 M.T. in weight, through ICD Garhi Harsaru. It was found that rice intended to be exported was not Basmati rice for which sample was taken. Entire inventory was taken in the presence of CHA. Accompanied documents show that instead of examination report, inspection report was only issued by Range Officer. Accordingly, approval was taken for detailed examination at the port of export. 5. Inferior quality of rice contained in the container was proved by the report dated 27.1.2009 of Project Director, Directorate of Rice Researc...
Tag this Judgment!D.K. Rangra, Himachal Pradesh Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A). 1. This case was filed by the applicant on 03.06.2013, and it was listed before the Vacation Bench on 04.06.2013, when notices were issued to the respondents on admission, and also on interim relief, and the case was ordered to be listed before the Vacation Bench on 07.06.2013. It may be noted here that though the Vacation Benches of this Tribunal are headed by single Members of this Tribunal, they exercise all the powers of Division Benches. 2. The Vacation Bench on 07.06.2013 considered the case of the applicant for grant of interim relief in detail, and disallowed the prayer for interim relief. 3. Thereafter, an MA No.1865/2013 came to be filed by the applicant on 19.07.2013, reply to which was also filed by the respondents, and the OA along with the MA, was heard in part firstly on 13.08.2013, and finally on 18.09.2013, and then reserved for orders. Voluminous documents of the relevant departmental records were submitted by the respondents, which have sinc...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Lucknow Vs. M/S. Srivastsa International Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard Shri RK Mishra, Ld. Departmental Representative appearing for Revenue. Nobody appeared for the respondents. 2. As per facts on record, respondents are engaged in the manufacture of textile fabrics. Their factory was visited by the officers of DGCEI, who conducted search operations at their factory premises as also at their godown on 20.01.2004. Certain stock of finished fabrics totally valued at Rs.10,44,883/- (Rupees ten lakh forty four thousand eight hundred and eighty three only) was found in excess than the recorded balance. Similarly, the stock of P.C. suiting and PV suiting totally valued about Rs.4 lakh (Rupees four lakhs only) involving duty of Rs.40,848/- (Rupees forty thousand eight hundred and forty eight only) was found short. The respondents deposited the said duty on 30.01.2004.Similarly, at the godown, the officers detained the en...
Tag this Judgment!