Delhi Court February 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 43 of about 540 results (0.021 seconds)Sanjay Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: February 07, 2014 + CRL.A. 988/2011 SANJAY KUMAR Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advocate Versus STATE Through ..... Respondent Ms. Richa Kapoor, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT KAILASH GAMBHIR, J1 By this appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C), the appellant herein seeks to challenge the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 25.11.2010 and 7.12.2010, respectively, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life together with payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.2. The case in hand unfolds one ...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain
Court: Delhi
$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 17/2014 STATE Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Sunil Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with Mr. Yashpal, Inspector. versus ASHOK KUMAR JAIN ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA ORDER % 07.02.2014 Crl.M.A. No.311/2014 (Condonation of delay) By this application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner is seeking condonation of delay of 18 days in filing the accompanying criminal leave to appeal. For the reason stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 18 days in filing the accompanying petition seeking leave to appeal against the impugned judgment is condoned. Application stands disposed of. Crl.L.P.No.17/2014 By this petition filed under Section 378 (1) Cr.P.C., the petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the order dated 31 st August 2013 passed by learned Additio...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Aig General Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Harpal Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:7. h February, 2014 % + MAC.APP. 1/2012 TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Vipin Nandwani, Advocate. Versus HARPAL SINGH & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.H.S. Sharma, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned award dated 14.10.2011, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.5,58,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company argued the present appeal only on the ground that respondent No.3/driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving licence on the date of the accident, i.e., 31.12.2005 and in such eventuality, the learned Tribunal ought to have exonerated the appellant/...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Krishna Devi and ors
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.82/2013 % DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Through:7. h February, 2014 ..... Appellant Mrs. Saroj Bidawat and Ms. Ritu Yadav, Advs. versus KRISHNA DEVI & ORS Through: ..... Respondents Mr. K.S. Goswami, Adv. for R-1 to 3. Ms. Nanita Sharma, Adv. for R-4. 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 against the judgment of the Employees Commissioner dated 02.11.2012 which has allowed the claim petition filed by the claimant/respondent herein and who were the applicants before the Commissioner. The facts filed by the respondents before the Commissioner was that the deceased Sh. Gopal Mehto who was working as a driver with the appellant/DTC, after completing his duty to ply the bus from Delhi to Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh was sleeping on the roof of the bus from where he fell down as he was fast a...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Rajesh GosaIn and anr.
Court: Delhi
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:07. h February, 2014 CRL.M.C.1635/2013 STATE Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Dayan Krishnan, ASC with Ms. Manvi Priya, Advocate versus RAJESH GOSAIN & ANR. Through ..... Respondent Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Insp./ Cyber Cell/EOW. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia & Mr. Prashant Ghai, Advocates for R-2 CRL.M.C.1012/2013 & Crl.M.A.3158/2013 VIJAY GOVIND ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Aman Lekhi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajat Wadhwa, Advocate versus STATE & ANR. Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Dayan Krishnan, ASC with Ms. Manvi Priya, Advocate Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Insp./ Cyber Cell/EOW Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia & Mr. Prashant Ghai, Advocates for R-2 CRL.M.C.1022/2013 & Crl.M.A.3187/2013 VIJAY GOVIND ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Aman Lekhi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajat Wadhwa, Advocate versus STATE & ORS. Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Dayan Krishnan, ASC with Ms. Manvi Priya, Advocate...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Govind Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:07. h February, 2014 CRL.M.C.1635/2013 STATE Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Dayan Krishnan, ASC with Ms. Manvi Priya, Advocate versus RAJESH GOSAIN & ANR. Through ..... Respondent Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Insp./ Cyber Cell/EOW. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia & Mr. Prashant Ghai, Advocates for R-2 CRL.M.C.1012/2013 & Crl.M.A.3158/2013 VIJAY GOVIND ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Aman Lekhi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajat Wadhwa, Advocate versus STATE & ANR. Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Dayan Krishnan, ASC with Ms. Manvi Priya, Advocate Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Insp./ Cyber Cell/EOW Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia & Mr. Prashant Ghai, Advocates for R-2 CRL.M.C.1022/2013 & Crl.M.A.3187/2013 VIJAY GOVIND ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Aman Lekhi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajat Wadhwa, Advocate versus STATE & ORS. Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Dayan Krishnan, ASC with Ms. Manvi Priya, Advocate...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj Bhan Thr Gpa Holder and ors. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI7h February, 2014 % + LA.APP. 632/2011 & CM No.17689/2013 (for stay) SURAJ BHAN THR GPA HOLDER & ORS. .... Appellants Through Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .... Respondents Through Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate respondent No.1. Mr. Ankit Jain, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. S.K. Pathak, Ms. K. Kiran Pathak, for respondent/LAC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 impugning the judgment of the court below dated 6.6.2011 by which the proceedings under Sections 30 and 31of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were decided in favour of the interested person, respondent No.2 herein, and who was the respondent No.1 (IP No.1) in the court below. By the impugned judgment, the claim of appellants-respondent nos. 2 to 9 before the court below, with respect to t...
Tag this Judgment!Kashmir Kaur Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.347/2013 7th February, 2014 % KASHMIR KAUR ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Pratima N. Chauhan, Adv. Versus DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION AND ORS. .... Respondents Through: Mr. A.S. Rao, Law Officer, DMRC/R-1. Ms. Shruti Shukla, Adv. for Mr. Suman Bagga, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 impugning the judgment of the Commissioner dated 13.09.2012 which has denied penalty in terms of Section 4 A of the Act to the applicant but was awarded interest under the said Section as deposit was made after a period of 30 days of the accident.2. The impugned judgment rightly holds that the main judgement dated 22.7.2010 has become final and by which specific amount of compensation of Rs. 4,50,500/- was awarded to the appellant. Commissioner rightly noticed that this specific amount cannot be vari...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Savita Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.278/2012 7th February, 2014 % SMT. SAVITA ..... Appellant Through: None. Versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: None. 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 10.2.2012 which has dismissed the claim petition filed by the applicant/appellant who is the mother of the deceased Brijesh.2. The facts as pleaded before the Tribunal were that the deceased Sh. Brijesh on 19.4.2010 early in the morning was returning from Palwal to Faridabad by EMU train when the said Sh. Brijesh fell down from the train, resulting in his death, and therefore the claim petition was filed.3. A reference to the impugned judgment shows that the Tribunal has gone into great details with respect to variations in train timings ignoring the statement...
Tag this Judgment!Pratap Singh and ors Vs. Jagjeewan
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.136/2013 % PRATAP SINGH AND ORS Through:7. h February, 2014 ..... Appellants Mr. Vikram Nandrajog and Mr. Sushil Jaswal, Advs. versus JAGJEEWAN Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Jitender Dewan, Adv. for Mr. Deepak Dewan, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM. No.16496/2013(under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC) For the reasons stated in the application, this application is allowed and the LR of Smt. Krishna Devi, appellant No.4 (1), are brought on record, and who is otherwise on record. CM stands disposed of. FAO1362013 1. This appeal is filed by the defendants in the suit impugning the order dated 04.03.2013 by which the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the respondent herein, and plaintiff before the trial court, was FAO No.136/2013 Page 1 allowed by directing status quo during the pendency of the suit. A Local Commissioner has also been appointed by th...
Tag this Judgment!