Delhi Court February 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 31 of about 540 results (0.021 seconds)New India Assurance Co Ltd Vs. Chandeshwar Sahni and ors
Court: Delhi
$~17 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:13. h February, 2014 MAC.APPEAL No.1020/2012 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellants Represented by: Manu Shahalia, Adv. versus CHANDESHWAR SAHNI & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. Dilip Singh and Mr. Sujeet Singh, Advs. for R3 and R4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned award dated 23.04.2012, whereby Ld. Tribunal awarded compensation for a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant / insurance company argued the instant appeal on the sole ground that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving licence on the date of accident, despite that Ld. Tribunal has not granted recovery rights in their favour and against respondent nos. 3 and 4, i.e., the driver and owner of the offendi...
Tag this Judgment!Usha Rani Gautam and Others Vs. Devender Gautam
Court: Delhi
$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 720/2010 % Date of Decision: February 13, 2014 USHA RANI GAUTAM & OTHERS ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Prakash Gautam, Advocate versus DEVENDER GAUTAM ..... Defendant Through: Mr.N.Sharma, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S. SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. The plaintiffs, who are sisters, have filed the present suit against their brother (defendant herein) for partition of the suit property bearing No.J & K- 66 measuring 100 sq. yds situated at Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110 092. As per the plaint, the suit property was purchased by the mother of the parties by virtue of registered sale deed no.4830 registered in Book No.1, volume 201, pages 45-47 on 13.7.1970. The property was built by the father of the parties. The mother of the parties died intestate on 17.2.1995. The parties thereafter relinquished their respective shares in favour of their father by means of a registered relinquishment deed. The father during his lifetime had exe...
Tag this Judgment!Indiabulls Securities Limited Vs. Ramesh Chand Gupta and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % FAO No.47/2013 February 13, 2014 INDIABULLS SECURITIES LIMITED Through : ..... Appellant Mr. Mohit Gupta, Advocate. versus RAMESH CHAND GUPTA & ANR. Through : ..... Respondents Mr. Rakesh Kansal, Adv. for R-1. 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 by the appellant against the impugned judgment of the court below dated 16.10.2012 whereby objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the appellant/M/s. Indiabulls Securities Limited, were dismissed. By the Award, the respondent no.1 herein, and who was the claimant in the arbitration proceedings, was awarded damages by the Arbitrator/respondent no.2/Justice Mr. V.S.Aggarwal (Retd.), Sole Arbitrator on the ground that the appellant herein (respondent in the arbitration proceedings) wrongly liquidated the holdings of the claimant/respondent no.1 although there wa...
Tag this Judgment!Gopichand Decd Thr Lrs Andanr Vs. Sukhdev and anr
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO552012 February 13, 2014 GOPICHAND DECD THR LRS &ANR Through : ..... Appellants Mr. R.K.Singla, Advocate. versus SUKHDEV & ANR ..... Respondents Through : None. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) FAO552012 & CM18862012(stay) 1. This First Appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, impugns the judgment of the Commissioner dated 25.11.2011 which has allowed the claim petition filed by the respondents herein (applicants before the Commissioner). The appellants No.1 to 3 and 5 to 8 are the legal heirs of the respondent no.1 before the Commissioner Sh. Gopi Chand, and who were substituted in place of Gopi Chand during the pendency of the proceedings before the Commissioner. The appellant no.4 Ashok Kumar, son of Gopi Chand, was already the respondent no.2 before the Commissioner.2. The case set up by respondents before the Commissioner was that the d...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Lal Vs. Chhote Lal and ors
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % FAO No.357/2013 FEBRUARY13 2014 ..... Appellant MOHAN LAL Through : Mr. Sugriva Dubey, Advocate. Versus CHHOTE LAL & ORS Through : ..... Respondents Mr. R.K.Nain, Advocate for R-1. 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 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 impugning the judgment of the Commissioner dated 31.05.2013 which has allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent no.1 herein.2. The facts of the case are that the respondent no.1 (applicant before the Commissioner) was employed by respondent no.2/contractor (also the respondent no.2 before the Commissioner) as a mason (Raj Mistri) for the work to be performed of construction of Hotel owned by appellant (respondent no.1 before the Commissioner). On 20.07.2005, when the respondent no.1 reached his place of work at 7575, Ram Nagar, Nabi Karim, New Delhi, he was put t...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shailender Kaur and ors. Vs. Shri Sujan Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.401-04/2006 13th February, 2014 % SMT. SHAILENDER KAUR AND ORS. ......Appellants Through: Mr. Prag Chawla, Advocate. VERSUS SHRI SUJAN SINGH AND ANR. Through: ...... Respondents Mr. R.S. Kela, 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 impugns the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 27.11.1999 and the first appellate court dated 21.9.2006; by which the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs seeking mandatory injunction, permanent injunction and damages/mesne profits against the defendants with respect to the suit property bearing No.WZ-430, Nanakpura, Hari Nagar, New Delhi has been dismissed.2. The appellants/plaintiffs claimed that the suit property was owned by late Sh. Harjinder Singh (their predecessor-in-interest) husband of the appellant no.1/plaintiff no.1 and father of other appellants/plaintiffs an...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Cement Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. V K Arora and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on February 13, 2014 + W.P.(C) 5474/2013 M/S CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Jainendra Maldahiyar, Advocate with Ms.Nanda Devi, Advocate versus V K ARORA & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Sameer Sharma, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.(Oral) 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated May 24, 2013 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Act, in short).2. The issue which arises for consideration of this Court in this writ petition is whether the petitioner could withhold the gratuity amount of the respondent No.1 (Respondent, in short) on the date when the respondent had superannuated, on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were pending against the respondent.3. The brief facts are, the respondent at the relevant time, was working as GM (M.M./Marketing) with the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Gupta Vs. State and anr
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Crl.M.C.1084/2011 % Date of Decision: February 13, 2014 OM PRAKASH GUPTA Through : ..... Petitioner Mr.D.C.Mathur, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sushil Bajaj, Adv. versus STATE & ANR Through : ..... Respondents Mr.Arun Batta, Adv. for respondent no.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL VEENA BIRBAL, J.(ORAL) * 1. This is a petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure wherein prayer is made for setting aside the impugned order dated 3 rd January, 2011 passed by the ld.Metropolitan Magistrate (NW), Rohini Court, Delhi whereby the petitioner has been summoned for an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.2. The respondent no.2/complainant had filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 alleging therein that he had lent a friendly loan of Rs.20,80,000/- to the petitioner in cash on 4.4.2009. It is alleged that petitioner promised to return the same in the month of May, 2...
Tag this Judgment!Manju JaIn Vs. Kirori Mal College and anr.
Court: Delhi
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:13. 02.2014 + W.P.(C) 7663/2012 and CM No.19398/2012 (stay) MANJU JAIN ..... PETITIONER VERSUS KIRORI MAL COLLEGE AND ANR ..... RESPONDENTS ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE: For the Petitioner: Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate with petitioner in person For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Bansal and Ms. Ritika Nagpal, Advocates for R-1 Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal and Ms. Sayantani Sen, Advocates for R-2 CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J1 By this writ petition, the only relief that the petitioner seeks is, that a direction be issued to the respondents for appointing the petitioner to the post of Administrative Officer (Unreserved), in the background of the fact that, the Selection Committee, at its meeting held on 15.12.2011 had empanelled her at second position in the order of merit, and since, the candidate empanelled at first position has expressed his dis-interest in being recruited, she should be appointed to t...
Tag this Judgment!D.V. Singh and Another Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order Reserved on:16. th January, 2014 Pronounced on:13. th February, 2014 + CS(OS) 2984/2011 D.V. SING H AND A NOT HE R Through: ..... Plaintiffs Mr.Anand Yadav, Advocate versus MUNICIPAL CO RPO RATIO N OF DELHI & A NOT HE R ..... Defendants Through: Ms.Shyel Tehan and Ms.Manzira Dasgupta, Advocates for D-1/MCD Mr.A.P.Aggar wal, Adv for D-2. Mr.Ravi Kant Chadha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.K. Gautam, Adv for defendant/applicant. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.IA No.12765/2013 (under Order 1 rule10) 1. This is an application on behalf of M/s Swatantra Coop ======================================================================= House Building Society for being impleaded as defendant in the present suit.2. Order 1 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down as under:10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff. (1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whethe...
Tag this Judgment!