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.
Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Special Director of Enforcement
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 118 of 2008 Reserved on: January 28, 2014 Decision on: February 4, 2014 PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD. .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rajeev K. Virmani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashish Kothari and Mr. Abhay Pratap Singh, Advocates versus SPECIAL DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT .....Defendant Through: Mr. Subhash Bansal, Advocate WITH CRL.A. 148 of 2008 SUNIL MEHDIRATTA Through: .....Appellant Mr. Rajeev K. Virmani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashish Kothari and Mr. Abhay Pratap Singh, Advocates versus SPECIAL DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT .....Defendant Through: Mr. Subhash Bansal, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT0402.2014 1. Crl. A. 118 of 2008 by Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. (PRIPL) and Crl. A. 148 of 2008 by Sunil Mehdiratta are directed against the impugned common order dated 30th October 2007 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange (AT) dismissing their respective Appeal Nos.1116 and 1117 of 2004, thereby affirming the order d...
Hukam Singh Vs. Gulshan Kumar Gambhir
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2014
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:4. h February, 2014. % + RFA6042004 HUKAM SINGH Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Ashok Sapra and Mr. Jagdish Singh, Advocates. Versus GULSHAN KUMAR GAMBHIR ..... Respondent Through: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. Mayank Bansal and Mr. Milan Deep Singh, Advocates. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. The appeal impugns the judgment and decree (dated 6th January, 2004 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi in Suit No.74/2001 filed by the respondent) against the appellant of recovery of possession of the entire second floor of property No.WZ-21A, Village Shakurpur, Sri Nagar, Delhi and mesne profits/damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month with effect from the date of the filing of the suit and till the delivery of possession.2. The respondent/plaintiff instituted the suit from which this appeal arises, pleading:(a) that the respondent/plaintiff is t...
Subhash JaIn Vs. Ravi Sehgal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment pronounced on: February 4, 2014 RC. Rev. No.292/2013, C.M. Nos.12119/2013 & 18918/2013 SUBHASH JAIN Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Jayant Bhushan, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Vishal Gupta & Mr.Kumar Mihir, Advs. versus RAVI SEHGAL ..... Respondent Through Mr.Rajiv Bajaj, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The petitioner by way of the present petition under Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the DRC Act) has assailed the eviction order dated 7th August 2013 passed by Additional Rent Controller-1, Central, Delhi.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an eviction petition against the petitioner in respect of a shop bearing No.1, Ground Floor, 51/02, New Market, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the tenanted shop) wherein the respondent was a co-owner of the portion of the said property. It was the case of the respondent that he...
Shri Rajan Vs. Smt. Poonam Khullar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.37/2014 4th February,2014 % SHRI RAJAN Through: ......Appellant Mr. Ramesh K. Sharma, Adv. VERSUS SMT. POONAM KHULLAR Through: ...... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM No.2329/2014(delay in refiling) 1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in re-filing is condoned. CM stands disposed of. CM No.2328/2014 (Exemption) 2. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. CM stands disposed of. RSA372014 & CM No.2327/2014 (stay) 3. The only ground which is urged before this Court in this second appeal by the defendant-appellant is that, though partition has to be done and possession has to be granted to the respondent-plaintiff of her half share in the suit property, the defendant-appellant invokes the principle of owelty and claims equalization of the shares in the suit property bearing No.1/9454, Gali No.7, West Rohtash Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-1...
Smt Anita Vs. Uco Bank
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2014
$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:4. h February, 2014 % + CM(M) 129/2014 SMT ANITA Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Lokesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate with Petitioner in person. Versus UCO BANK Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Sarfaraz Khan, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) CM No.2245/2014 (for exemption) Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. CM(M) 129/2014 1. Notice issued.2. Mr.Sarfaraz Khan, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.3. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking directions against the respondent to release the amount lying deposited in FDR bearing No.397262 dated 11.01.2012 in A/c No.18580310077849 in her favour.4. Brief facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner, namely, Shri Shambhu had died in the accident occurred on 21.06.2009 leaving behind the petitioner widow, two minor children and the parents.5....
Smt. Chanchal JaIn Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2014
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:4. h February, 2014 % + LPA No.791/2013 SMT. CHANCHAL JAIN Through: .. Appellant Mr. Rajiv Bajaj, Adv. with Mr. G.L. Jain, Attorney of the appellant. Versus UNION OF INDIA Through: .. Respondent Mr. B.V. Niren & Mr. Aditya Malhotra, Advs. CORAM :HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 23rd November, 2010 of the learned Single Judge of this Court of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.5627/2010 filed by the appellant as well as the order dated 19 th January, 2011 of the learned Single Judge of dismissal of the review petition No.21/2011 filed by the appellant and yet also the order dated 29th July, 2013 of the learned Single Judge of dismissal of CMs No.10854-10855/2013 filed by the appellant in the disposed of writ petition.2. We have heard the counsel for the appellant.3. The writ petition from which this appeal arises was filed impugning the order dated 22nd January, ...
Mohd. Arfeen and anr. Vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :6. h DECEMBER, 2013 DECIDED ON :4. h FEBRUARY, 2014 + AND + CRL.A. 479/2000 MOHD. RASHEED ....Appellant Through : Mr.K.B.Andley, Sr.Advocate with Mr.M.L.Yadav & Mr.Lokesh , Advocates. versus STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) .Respondent Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. CRL.A. 566/2000 MOHD. ARFEEN & ANR. ....Appellants Through : Mr.K.B.Andley, Sr.Advocate with Mr.M.L.Yadav & Mr.Lokesh , Advocates. versus STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) .Respondent Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.The present appeals stand disposed of in terms of a detailed common judgment delivered today which is placed in the file of Crl.A.No.492/2000 titled Sagar Takwal vs. The State (Delhi Admn.) Delhi. (S.P.GARG) JUDGE FEBRUARY04 2014/TR...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Raj Bala and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2014
7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.217/2010 & CM100352010 (stay) 4th February, 2014 % NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ......Appellant Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate VERSUS SMT. RAJ BALA & ANR. ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Sandeep Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms. Geeta Vohra, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This first appeal filed by the Insurance Company under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 challenges the judgment of the Commissioner dated 05.01.2010 by which the Commissioner allowed the compensation claim filed by respondent No.1 herein (claimant before the Commissioner).2. The claim petition was filed by respondent No.1 herein (applicant/petitioner before the Commissioner), who is the mother of the deceased Sh. Dalbir Singh, who died on 21.2.2000 when he was driving the vehicle Tata Sumo bearing registration number DL-6C-A1372 w...
Shri Shiv Paul Sagar Vs. Smt. Vishakha Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.38/2014 & CM No.2339/2014 4th February,2014 % SHRI SHIV PAUL SAGAR Through: ......Appellant Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Mr. R.L.Arora, Advocates. VERSUS SMT. VISHAKHA SHARMA Through: ...... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. Certain litigations in this country are nothing but gross abuse of the process of law and the present appeal is one such litigation. I am making this strong statement before adverting to the facts because the suit premises are outside the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as the rent amount is more than Rs.3500/- per month and the appellants-defendants have continued in the obstinate possession of the suit premises in spite of termination of tenancy way back on 18.1.2008. Today we are in 2014. Further, not only the appellant/defendant/tenant did not file written statement and right to file the same was closed, that order be...
Sh. Rajinder Singh Vs. Sh. Mahinder Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.258/2013 4th February, 2014 % SH. RAJINDER SINGH Through: ......Appellant Mr. Manoranjan, Advocate. VERSUS SH. MAHINDER SINGH Through: ...... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. Nos.2262/2014 and C.M. No.2263/2014 (condonation of delay) 1. Appeal is restored by allowing the application under Order 9 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and also by condoning the delay of 21 days in filing the application for restoration. Appeal is restored to its original number. C.M. stands disposed of. C.M. No.18567/2013 (exemption) 2. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. + RSA No.258/2013 and C.M. No.18566/2013 (stay) 3. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant against the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 22.9.2011 and the appellate court dated 11.9.2013; by wh...
- ‹ Prev
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- Next ›
- Last »