Delhi Court February 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 5 of about 540 results (0.026 seconds)K.K. Verma Vs. C.B.i.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:24. 02.2014 Date of Decision:26. 02.2014 % + Crl. A. No.1126 of 2013 K.K. VERMA Through: .Appellant Mr. R.K. Gupta & Mr. B.P. Gupta, Advs. Versus C.B.I. Through: .Respondent Mr. Manoj Pant & ms. Utkarsha Kohli, Advs. for Mr. Narender Mann, Spl. PP, CBI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.Crl. M.A. No.18710/2013 (for Stay of Conviction) The case of the CBI against the appellant in a nutshell is as follows: Inspector Sunil Dutt of CBI was entrusted with the verification of a complaint alleging purchase of sub-standard product by the Punjab Regional Office of FCI. The appellant K.K. Verma who was working as the Assistant Manager (Vigilance), had conducted field verification with respect to the said complaint and had also met Inspector Sunil Dutt in this regard, in CBI office at Jam Nagar House. On 12.9.2001, the appellant met him outside his office and enquired about the verification which he was making. When the ...
Tag this Judgment!Jitesh@ Tie Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:26. 02.2014 + JITESH@ TIE Crl. Appeal No.89/2010 .Appellant Through: Mr. Anurag Jain, Adv. Versus STATE Through: .Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(Oral) On 19th December, 2008, Vinod, son of Tilkheshwar Rai, aged about 35 years was admitted in Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital in injured condition, having been taken by his brother Baij Nath. The information in this regard was given by Duty Constable in JPN Hospital to the Police Station and was recorded there vide DD No.5A. Copy of the DD was given to SI Bihari Lal of the said Police Station for investigation. When the Investigating Officer reached the Hospital, he found Vinod admitted there and recorded his statement. The injured Vinod told the Investigating Officer that he was a rickshaw puller and on that date at about 4.30 A.M., when he was taking tea sitting on a bench with his cousin Baij Nath, a young boy came t...
Tag this Judgment!Mehtab Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on February 26, 2014 + W.P.(C) 1291/2014 MEHTAB SINGH ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Deepak Vohra, Advocate versus DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Latika Chaudhury, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.(Oral) CM No.2693/2014 (exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 1291/2014 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the award dated May 14, 2014 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in I.D. No.16/11, whereby the Industrial Tribunal has not granted any relief to the petitioner herein.2. The brief facts are, the petitioner, who was working as a Driver with the respondent-Corporation was charge sheeted vide order dated July 30, 2004, wherein it was alleged that he started a bus from Keshavpur Depot at 1.30 p.m.; took CNG from Hari Nagar Depot and then started trip from Uttam Nagar Termi...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Kumar Tiwari Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :19. h FEBRUARY, 2014 DECIDED ON :26. h FEBRUARY, 2014 + CRL.A. 1580/2011 AJAY KUMAR TIWARI Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Arnayak Pathak, Advocate. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to a judgment dated 28.11.2011 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge FTC (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Sessions Case No.14/11 arising out of FIR No.282/10 PS NDRS by which the appellant Ajay Kumar Tiwari was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 328 IPC. By an order on sentence dated 29.11.2011, he was awarded RI for five years with fine ` 2,000/-.2. The prosecution case as projected in the charge-sheet was that on 13.12.2010 at about 03.20 P.M. at main hall of New Delhi Railway Station, the appellant administered a stupefying substance to the complainant Pandav Dalai after mixing it in tea with an intention to commit ...
Tag this Judgment!Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Praveen Dua and ors.
Court: Delhi
* 2. + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.L.P. No.303 of 2013 NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Subhash Bansal, Advocate. versus PRAVEEN DUA & ORS. .......Respondents CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR % ORDER2602.2014 1. The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 3rd November 2012 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in SC No.165 of 2008 acquitting the Respondents of the offences under Sections 21, 22, 23 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).2. The case of the prosecution was that information had been received from the DEA, United States of America that one Dr. Brij Bhushan Bansal (Respondent No.3 herein), resident of Kamla Nagar, Agra was indulging in large scale smuggling of prescription drugs falling under the category of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances to US and other countries. On the basis of the said information, the Zonal Director, NCB p...
Tag this Judgment!Komal Singh and anr. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % FAO No.501/2011 26th February, 2014 KOMAL SINGH & ANR. Through: ......Appellant 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. In this appeal on the last date of hearing adjournment was sought on behalf of the appellants, and which was granted subject to deposit of costs of Rs.1000/- with the Delhi High Court Legal Aid Services Committee. Neither costs have been deposited nor is anyone present for the appellants.2. This first appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 19.7.2011 by which the Railway Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition by holding that there was no untoward incident as per the meaning of that expression in Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 causing the death of the boy Sh. Veerpal , son of...
Tag this Judgment!Muzzafar Shah Vs. Mmtc
Court: Delhi
$~R-9. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:26. 02.2014 + CS(OS) No.345/2006 MUZZAFAR SHAH Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Romy Chacko, Advocate versus M.M.T.C. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Lakshay Sawhney & Mr. Aditya Sarin, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI JUDGMENT VIPIN SANGHI, J.(ORAL) 1. These are objections preferred under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (the old Act) to the arbitral Award dated 25.10.2004 made by the learned Arbitrator Mr. Justice S.Ranganathan, retired Judge, Supreme Court of India, whereby the claim of the respondent has been allowed against the petitioner along with interest.2. The respondent MMTC introduced a Domestic Tariff Area Scheme under which it imported gold at concessional rates and supplied it to established manufacturers of gold jewellery in India for manufacture of ornaments which were eventually exported abroad. Under this scheme, the respondent provided assistance to manufacturers and exporters of ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Mohan Singh Vs. the Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial D ...
Court: Delhi
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:26. 02.2014 + W.P.(C) 5367/1998 SHRI MOHAN SINGH ..... Petitioner VERSUS THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE TRIBUNAL & ANR. ..... Respondents ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE: For the Petitioner: Mr G.D. Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr Piyush Sharma, Adv. For the Respondents: Mr. Jagat Arora & Mr Rajat Arora, Advs. for R-2. CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J1 This is a writ petition directed against the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) dated 15.07.1996. By virtue of the said award, the Tribunal answered the reference in favour of respondent no.2 bank, i.e., the Management. The reference made by the Central Government to the Tribunal was whether the action of respondent no.2 bank, in dismissing the petitioner from service was justified or not, and if not, what relief the workman was entitled to.2. This reference arose in the background ...
Tag this Judgment!Mr.Sharat Chandra Sharma and anr. Vs. Smt. Kusum Sharma and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.58/2014 & CM No.3829/2014 26th February, 2014 % MR.SHARAT CHANDRA SHARMA & ANR. ......Appellants Through: Mr. Manoj Singh, Adv. VERSUS SMT. KUSUM SHARMA & ANR. Through: ...... Respondents. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM No.3828/2014 (Exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. CM stands disposed of. FAO582014& CM No.3829/2014(stay) 2. Appellants, two sons, were the petitioners who had sought probate in the court below on the basis of the Will of their mother Smt. Shanti Devi Sharma dated 20.1.1999 by claiming that the Will bequeathed the property D4&5, Vishwas Park, Uttam Nagar, Delhi in their favour.3. Admittedly, as per this Will the suit property was to devolve upon the husband of Smt. Shanti Devi and father of the petitioners namely Sh. Chheda Lal Sharma, and petitioners were to get rights only if the husband Sh. Chheda Lal Sharma died b...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Kumar Vs. Bhagwanti and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA772013 & CM No.6169/2013 (stay) 26th February, 2014 % RAJESH KUMAR Through: ......Appellant Ms. Vidya Gudwani, Adv. VERSUS BHAGWANTI & ORS. ...... Respondents. Through: 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 concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 18.3.2011 and the first appellate court dated 16.1.2013; by which the counter-claim of respondentsdefendants has been decreed by directing the appellant-plaintiff to handover peaceful vacant possession of the suit premises being one shop admeasuring 10x6 with front side court-yard with common staircase at first floor of premises No.862, Nai Sarak, Delhi.2. Before adverting to the facts in detail, it requires to be noted that the suit of the appellant-plaintiff for injunction by which it was claimed that defendant no.1(now represented by her legal...
Tag this Judgment!