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.
Future General India Insurance Co Ltd Vs. Shakila Khatoon and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2014
$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:11. h February, 2014 MAC.APP. 1135/2012 FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant Represented by: Ms. Suman Bagga, Adv. versus SHAKILA KHATOON & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. V.N. Jha and Mr. B.K. Singh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned award dated 19.09.2012, whereby ld. Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.13,43,758/- (wrongly typed as Rs.11,81,924/-) with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding fake driving licence on the date of accident. In such eventuality, Ld. Tribunal ought to have exonerated the appellant from any liability. However, Ld. Tribunal directed the appellant / insurance company to deposit the amount an...
Phool Wati and anr. (In J.C.) Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on:05. 02.2014. Judgment delivered on:11.02.2014. CRL.A. 81/2006 PHOOL WATI & ANR. (IN J.C.) ..... Appellant Through Mr. Satish Tamta, Advocate. versus STATE Through ..... Respondent Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP along with SI Kapil Kumar. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 23.1.2006 and 28.1.2006, wherein Phool Wati (since deceased) and Smt. Usha (appellant) have been convicted for the offence under Sections 498A and 304-B IPC; appellant had been sentenced for the offence under Section 304-B IPC to undergo RI for a period of 7 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 1 year; for the offence under Section 498A IPC to undergo RI for 3 years with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment, to further undergo RI for 6 months.2. This judgment is the subject matter of appeal befo...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhupinder Kaur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2014
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:11. h February 2014 % + MAC.APP. 1050/2006 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Adv. Versus BHUPINDER KAUR & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Ramesh Kumar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated 17.08.2006, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.8,97,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization of the amount.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company has argued that the deceased Amarjit Singh Kakkar sustained fatal injuries on 28.04.2004. He submitted that the case of the claimants was that the deceased left for Delhi from Ludhiana in Mahindra Scorpio No.PB10BF0343which was being driven by Kulvinder Singh . When they reach...
Kandoi Metal Powders Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2014
$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on 11.02.2014 + W.P.(C) 5160/2013 KANDOI METAL POWDERS MFG. CO. PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Sh. M.P. Devnath and Sh. Aditya, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..... Respondent Through: Sh. Akshay Chandra, Advocate, for Resp. Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. The petitioner challenges the respondents action in denying its refund claim in terms of the provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14 framed under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.2. The brief facts are that the petitioner inter alia manufactures metal powders which suffers excise duty. It claims to have supplied manufactured goods to 100% Export-oriented Units (EOUs) in consonance with the said Foreign Trade Policy (FTP). Claiming that it W.P.(C)5160/2013 Page 1 was entitled to refund of Terminal Excise Duty (TED) for the supplies ...
Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Parkash and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2014
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:11. h February 2014 % + MAC.APP. 1185/2012 HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.... Appellant Represented by: Ms. Neeraja Sachdeva, Advocate. Versus PARKASH & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Rupika Singh for Mr.Navneet Goyal, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) MAC.APP. 1185/2012 1. Vide the present appeal, the appellant/Insurance Company is assailing the impugned award dated 03.07.2012, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.20,62,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, i.e., 12.07.2011 till realization of the amount.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company has argued that the respondents/claimants have failed to prove that the deceased was in a permanent employment and that he was working with M/S Garg Paper Converters and was ...
Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. RahisuddIn and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.47/2014 11th February, 2014 % RADHEY SHYAM GUPTA Through: ......Appellant Mr. Ram Niwas, Advocate. VERSUS RAHISUDDIN & ANR. ...... Respondents Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. No.2709/2014 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. + RSA No.47/2014 2. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the concurrent judgments of the Courts below; of the trial Court dated 2.3.2006 and the first appellate Court dated 15.10.2013; by which the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for cancellation of the documents dated 20.8.1998 was dismissed. By the documents dated 20.8.1998, the appellant/plaintiff transferred to the respondents/defendants his rights in the suit property bearing No.48-B, Janta Flat, Ashok Vihar-III, Delhi. The appellant/plaintiff claimed cancellation...
Sushma Sharma Vs. Bimla Devi Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.279/2013 11th February, 2014 % SUSHMA SHARMA Through: ......Appellant Mr. M.K. Sablok, Advocate. VERSUS BIMLA DEVI SHARMA Through: ...... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) challenge is laid to the two concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 20.7.2011 and the first appellate court dated 21.11.2013; by which the suit of the respondent/plaintiff/mother-in-law for permanent and mandatory injunction has been decreed against the appellant/defendant/daughter-in-law.2. The courts below have relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as S.R. Batra & Anr. Vs. Smt. Taruna Batra (2007) 3 SCC169which holds that a daughter-in-law has no right of residence in the house of the mother-in-law or the father-in-law, and which house of the ...
Ravi Dutta Vs. Kiran Dutta and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: January 16, 2014 Judgment Pronounced on: February 11, 2014 + (i) CRL.M.C.3106/2008 RAVI DUTTA Through: ..... Petitioner Ms. Amita Sehgal Mathur, Ms. Y Thakran & Mr. Prashant Singh, Advocates versus KIRAN DUTTA & ANR. Through: + (ii) ..... Respondents Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState Mr. Vijay Aggarwal and Ms. Chaitali Jain, Advocates for respondent No.2 CRL.REV.P.14/2009 KIRAN DUTTA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Vijay Aggarwal and Ms. Chaitali Jain, Advocates versus STATE & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState Ms. Amita Sehgal Mathur, Ms. Y Thakran & Mr. Prashant Singh, Advocates for respondent No.2 + (iii) CRL.M.C.10/2009 KIRAN DUTTA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Vijay Aggarwal and Ms. Chaitali Jain, Advocate versus STATE & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState Ms....
Sh. Bihari Shah and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2014
$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO2912011 11th February, 2014 % SH. BIHARI SHAH AND ORS. ..... Appellants Through Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through Mr. G.S. Chaturvedi, 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 under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,1987 has been filed by the dependent of the deceased Master Raju impugning the judgment of the Tribunal dated 24.11.2010 dismissing the claim petition.2. The Railway Claims Tribunal has held that there was no dispute that an untoward incident occurred of falling of Master Raju from the train while travelling from Subzi Mandi to Samaipur Badli on 8.4.2009, and this is FAO2912011 Page 1 expressed in the following conclusion of the Tribunal:Regarding the nature of the incident, there is on record, the evidence of Sh. Nand Kishore Singh and Sh. Bihari Shah stating that Master Raj...
Kiran Dutta Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: January 16, 2014 Judgment Pronounced on: February 11, 2014 + (i) CRL.M.C.3106/2008 RAVI DUTTA Through: ..... Petitioner Ms. Amita Sehgal Mathur, Ms. Y Thakran & Mr. Prashant Singh, Advocates versus KIRAN DUTTA & ANR. Through: + (ii) ..... Respondents Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState Mr. Vijay Aggarwal and Ms. Chaitali Jain, Advocates for respondent No.2 CRL.REV.P.14/2009 KIRAN DUTTA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Vijay Aggarwal and Ms. Chaitali Jain, Advocates versus STATE & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState Ms. Amita Sehgal Mathur, Ms. Y Thakran & Mr. Prashant Singh, Advocates for respondent No.2 + (iii) CRL.M.C.10/2009 KIRAN DUTTA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Vijay Aggarwal and Ms. Chaitali Jain, Advocate versus STATE & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState Ms....
- ‹ Prev
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- Next ›
- Last »