Delhi Court February 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 27 of about 540 results (0.022 seconds)Vikas Bhutani Vs. Kedar Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~ * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:17. h February, 2014 MAC.APP. 161/2005 VIKAS BHUTANI ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Adv. Versus KEDAR SINGH AND ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. for R3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned award dated 12.03.2004 whereby, ld. Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.11,26,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.2. Vide the present appeal, appellant is seeking enhancement of the compensation amount as noted above.3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that Ld. Tribunal has erred in not awarding any compensation for a period of one year for which the appellant remained under treatment and confined to bed. He was not able to undertake any work during that period. The appellant received disability of 68% ...
Tag this Judgment!Directorate of Enforcement Vs. A.K. Mittal
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:11. 02.2014 Date of Decision:17. 02.2014 CRL.A. 352 of 2010 % + DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Subhash Bansal, Adv. versus A.K. MITTAL Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Vivek Sibal & Mr. Jitender Ratta, Advs. + CRL.A. 353 of 2010 DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Subhash Bansal, Adv. versus RAJASTHAN PETRO SYNTHETICS LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Vivek Sibal & Mr. Jitender Ratta, Advs. + CRL.A. 354 of 2010 DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Subhash Bansal, Adv. Versus G.P. PODDAR Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Vivek Sibal & Mr. Jitender Ratta, Advs. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGEMENT V.K.JAIN, J.A memorandum dated 22.3.2002, was issued by the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, to the reskpondents, Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company), Mr. G.P. Poddar, Managing Director of the Company, Mr. A.K. Mittal, Executive D...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Kasturi Lal Mehra Vs. M/S Narshi Pharmaceutical and Surgical (P) ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: February 17, 2014 + CM(M) 1070/2013 & CM No.15803/2013 SHRI KASTURI LAL MEHRA ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Rajat Aneja, Adv. with Mr.Ishaan Chhaya, Adv. versus M/S NARSHI PHARMACEUTICAL & SURGICAL (P) LTD ..... Respondent Through Mr.Narsingh Narain Rai, Adv. with Mr.B.K. Jha, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The petitioner by way of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has assailed the order dated 19 th September 2013 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order XII, Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC was dismissed.2. Brief facts for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner had filed a suit for possession and damages/mesne profits against the respondent in respect of the property bearing No.9615, Gali No.12, measuring about 26.72 sq. yards, situated at Sadar Thana Road, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi- 110055 (hereina...
Tag this Judgment!Daya Nand Vs. Sh. Romal and ors.
Court: Delhi
$ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:17. h February, 2014 % + MAC.APP. 880/2006 DAYA NAND Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Purushottam Kumar, Advocate. Versus SH. ROMAL & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Dilip Singh, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.1. Vide the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the impugned award dated 27.07.2006, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.6,66,500/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization of the amount.2. It is important to note that on the date of the accident, respondent No.5 was the registered owner of the offending vehicle, however, appellant Daya Nand admitted that on the date of the accident he was the actual owner of the tractor and was in possession of the alleged offending vehicle.3. The present appeal has been filed mainly on the ground that offend...
Tag this Judgment!Soni Devi and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % SONI DEVI & ORS. FAO No.406/2010 Through:17. h February, 2014 ......Appellants Mr. S.K.Vashistha, Adv. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ...... Respondent Through: 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 Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 18.8.2010 which has dismissed the claim petition.2. The claim petition was filed by the appellants, applicants before the Railway Claims Tribunal, as dependants of the deceased Sh. Sanjeev Das, who died in an untoward incident on 8.6.2009 by falling from the train while travelling from Rathdhana to Holambi Kalan.3. The Railway Claims Tribunal has dismissed the petition by making Regarding Issue Nos 2,3 & 4 These issues are clubbed together for the sake of convenience, and also because they are inter-related. The applicant have placed on rec...
Tag this Judgment!Omveer Singh and Another Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: January 20, 2014 Judgment Pronounced on: February 17, 2014 + CRL.M.C.353/2009 OMVEER SINGH & ANOTHER .....Petitioners Through: Mr.V.K. Malik, Advocate versus STATE & ORS. Through: ....Respondents Mr. O.P. Saxena, Additional Public Prosecutor for RespondentState CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR % 1. JUDGMENT Quashing of criminal complaint No.199/07 for the offences under Section 506/323/34 of IPC is sought in this petition on merits. Vide order of 3rd October, 2008 petitioners have been summoned as accused in the aforesaid complaint made by respondent No.2. The facts giving rise to the instant complaint as noticed in the summoning order of 3rd October, 2008 are as under: "The facts in brief are that the complainant had an altercation with the tenant and his three sons. They gave beatings to the complainant on the basis of which a complaint was lodged to the police. On the basis of the complaint of FIR No.392/2007 under...
Tag this Judgment!Karan Singh Vs. Texmaco Infractructure and Holdings Ltd and anr
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment on:17. 02.2014. + CRL.REV.P. 103/2014 KARAN SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Saurabh Chauhan, Ms. Priya Singh and Mr.Varun Jain, Advs. versus TEXMACO INFRACTRUCTURE & HOLDINGS LTD & ANR Through ..... Respondents Mr. Kunal Cheema, Mr.Dhruv Kapur and Mr. Vijajender Kumar, Advs along with Mr. Rajesh Dhalani, Law Officer CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) Crl. M.A. No.2724/2014 (Exemption) 1 Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. 2 Application disposed off. CRL.REV.P. 103/2014 & Crl. M.A. No.2722/2014 (Stay) 3 The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 21.01.2014 which has endorsed the finding of the Sessions Judge dated 22.10.2013 wherein the petitioner had been held guilty under Section 630 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and had been sentenced by the first Court to pay a fine of Rs.2,02,000/- i.e. Rs.1,000/- per month w....
Tag this Judgment!Sangeeta Vs. Texmaco Infractructure and Holdings Ltd and anr
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment on:17. 02.2014. + CRL.REV.P. 104/2014 SANGEETA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Saurabh Chauhan, Ms. Priya Singh and Mr.Varun Jain, Advs. Versus TEXMACO INFRACTRUCTURE & HOLDINGS LTD & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr. Kunal Cheema, Mr.Dhruv Kapur and Mr. Vijajender Kumar, Advs along with Mr. Rajesh Dhalani, Law Officer CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) Crl. M.A. No.2736/2014 (Exemption) 1 Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. 2 Application disposed off. CRL.REV.P. 104/2014 & Crl. M.A. No.2735/2014 (Stay) 3 The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 21.01.2014 which has endorsed the finding of the Sessions Judge dated 26.10.2013 wherein the petitioner had been held guilty under Section 630 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and had been sentenced by the first Court to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- per month w.e.f. October, 2004 to ...
Tag this Judgment!Santra Vs. Union of India Thr. Gm Northern Railways
Court: Delhi
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO1572011 % 17.02.2014 SANTRA ..... Appellant Through Mr. D.K.Sammi, Mr. S.K. Kaundal, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA THR. GM NORTHERN RAILWAYS Respondent Through Mr. A.S. Dateer, 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 under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment dated 6.8.2010 which has dismissed the claim petition of the appellant/plaintiff.2. The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition as there is a finding that the deceased Sh. Mahesh Chand committed suicide and did not fall from the train. The relevant observations of the Railway Claims Tribunal read as under:Regarding Issue Nos. 2,3 & 4 These issues are clubbed together for the sake of convenience, and also because they are inter-related. The applicant has stated that at the time of the accident Sh. Mahesh Chand was holding a...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Kamal Malhotra and ors. Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.314/2013 17th February, 2014 % MS. KAMAL MALHOTRA AND ORS. Through: None. ..... Appellants Versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This is an appeal filed against the impugned judgment of the Guardianship Court dated 31.5.2013 dismissing the petition which sought permission to sell the undivided share of the minor children, petitioner nos.1 and 2, through their natural mother, petitioner no.3/Ms. Kamal Malhotra.2. The Guardianship Court has dismissed the petition only because of the conclusion in para 16 that the petitioners have failed to file photocopies of the documents pertaining to the suit property and also that the valuation report of the suit property has not been filed. FAO No.314/2013 petitioner no.3 is the natural mother of the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!