Delhi Court February 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 52 of about 540 results (0.021 seconds)Yogendra Nath Vs. Commissioner Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
Court: Delhi
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 510/2014 & CM No.1024/2014 Date of Decision:4. h February, 2014 YOGENDRA NATH Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Prabodh Kumar, Adv. versus COMMISSIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN ..... Respondent Through Mr. S. Rajappa, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J (Oral) 1. The petitioner before us assails the order dated 28.05.2013 passed in O.A. No.4605/2011, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi whereby the order dated 07.01.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan under Article 81(b) of the Education Code, terminating the services of the petitioner and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 21.07.2010 were sustained.2. The facts giving rise to the instant petition are in narrow compass. The petitioner was employed by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) as a post graduate teacher (English) and at the relevant time, posted...
Tag this Judgment!Neeraj Gautam and anr Vs. S P Bansal
Court: Delhi
$~6 & 52 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 716/2012 & CM APPL. 2275/2014 NEERAJ GAUTAM & ANR Through: versus S P BANSAL Through: ....Petitioners Mr. Tanuj Khurana, Mr. Gaurav Malik & Mr. Sumit Verma, Advocates ....Respondent Mr. J.S. Bakshi & Mr. Amitesh Singh Bakshi, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA (ORAL) 1. The Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA) is a section 25 company as enunciated under the Companies Act, 1956 and has been incorporated under the same. The DDCA is a not for profit organisation that works for the promotion of the sport of cricket. As per the Articles of Association of the DDCA, the General Secretary is part of the Executive committee. As per clause 40 of the Articles of Association, the General Secretary can hold office till the conclusion of the Annual General Meeting held subsequent to the next succeeding Annual General Meeting. The eligible members are to elect the General Secretar...
Tag this Judgment!Mitsubishi Corporation Vs. Director of Enforcement
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL. A. No.40 of 2008 Reserved on: January 20, 2014 Decision on: February 3, 2014 MITSUBISHI CORPORATION ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Avinash Mody, Ms. Ritika Pal and Ms. Monisha Handa, Advocates. versus DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent Through: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT0302.2014 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 30th October 2007 passed by the Foreign Exchange Appellate Tribunal (AT), dismissing the Appellants Appeal No.348 of 2004 directed against the adjudication order (AO) dated 10th February 2004 passed by the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate (ED) which held that the Appellant had contravened Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), 1973 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,00,00,000 on it under Section 50 of the FERA.2. The Appellant is a liaison office (LO) of Mitsubishi Corporation (Mitsubishi), Japan,...
Tag this Judgment!Microsoft Corporation and anr. Vs. Kurapati Venkata Jagdeesh Babu and ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on: February 3, 2014 + CS(OS) 2163/2010 & I.A. No.14225/2010 MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through Mr.Pravin Anand, Adv. with Ms.Vaishali Mittal & Ms.D. Neha Reddy, Advs. versus KURAPATI VENKATA JAGDEESH BABU & ANR ..... Defendants Through Defendants are ex parte. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The defendant is ex-parte. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction, restraining infringement and dilution of trademarks, trade name, passing off, rendition of accounts of profit, delivery up, damages etc. against the defendants.2. The plaintiff No.1 i.e. Microsoft Corporation, a company incorporated in USA in the year 1975 is stated to be the biggest software publisher for personal and business computing in the world. Plaintiff No.2, Microsoft Corporation India Private Ltd. is a subsidiary of plaintiff No.1 and was set up in the year 1989.3. Plaintiff No.1...
Tag this Judgment!Parmod Mandal @ Dhukho Mandal Vs. the State (Gnct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :23. d JANUARY, 2014 DECIDED ON :3. d FEBRUARY, 2014 + CRL.A. 1395/2012 SATISH @ MADRASI ..... Appellant Through : Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advocate. VERSUS STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. AND RESERVED ON :27. h JANUARY, 2014 DECIDED ON :3. d FEBRUARY, 2014 + CRL.A. 703/2013 PARMOD MANDAL @ DHUKHO MANDAL Through : ..... Appellant Ms.Alpana Pandey, Advocate. VERSUS THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, 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.907/2013 titled Anand @ Jat vs. State (Govt. of NCT) of Delhi. (S.P.GARG) JUDGE FEBRUARY03 2013/tr...
Tag this Judgment!Satish @ Madrasi Vs. State (Govt. of Nct) of Delhi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :23. d JANUARY, 2014 DECIDED ON :3. d FEBRUARY, 2014 + CRL.A. 1395/2012 SATISH @ MADRASI ..... Appellant Through : Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advocate. VERSUS STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. AND RESERVED ON :27. h JANUARY, 2014 DECIDED ON :3. d FEBRUARY, 2014 + CRL.A. 703/2013 PARMOD MANDAL @ DHUKHO MANDAL Through : ..... Appellant Ms.Alpana Pandey, Advocate. VERSUS THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, 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.907/2013 titled Anand @ Jat vs. State (Govt. of NCT) of Delhi. (S.P.GARG) JUDGE FEBRUARY03 2013/tr...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 83/2014 DR. NEELAM BHALLA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. R. Sathish, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, Advocate for R-1 and 2. Reserved on :6. h January, 2014 Date of Decision :3. d February, 2014 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J:1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22nd August, 2013 passed by the Central Information Commission (for short CIC). The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced hereibelow:4. It is a matter of fact that Shri Bundela had provided inaccurate and incorrect information to the appellant but Shri Bundelas contention that he had transmitted information as received by him from CPIO of RAC cannot be disregarded. It is important to bear in mind that Shri Bundela was not the holder of information. The holder of information was CPIO, RAC. Whatever information was forwarded to Shri Bundela by CPIO, ...
Tag this Judgment!N.C. Bansal Vs. Board of Discipline of Icai and ors
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:3. d February, 2014. + LPA No.105/2014 N.C. BANSAL ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sameer Bhatnagar, Adv. Versus BOARD OF DISCIPLINE OF ICAI & ORS ..... Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 This intra court appeal impugns the judgment dated 28th November, 2013 of the learned Single Judge of this Court of dismissal of WP(C) No.1043/2013 filed by the appellant. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant seeking a direction to the respondent, Board of Discipline of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India to carry out and expedite investigation into the complaint filed by the appellant and to submit an appropriate report before the Court.2. The appellant had filed a complaint dated 20th June, 2008 with the Secretary, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, New Delhi to take disciplinary action against one Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, Chartered Accountant.3. It is...
Tag this Judgment!Maya Vs. State (Nct) of Delhi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on:31. 01.2014 Date of Decision:03. 02.2014 + MAYA CRL. APPEAL10962010 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajay Verma and Mr. Shiv Kr. Dwivedi Advs. versus STATE (NCT) OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.On 19.12.2007, the deceased Shilpi, daughter-in-law of the appellant, who was having severe burn injuries on her body, was brought to RML Hospital by her husband Madan Kumar. On receipt of information in this regard, ASI Khursid of Police Station Pahar Ganj reached the RML Hospital and on learning that Shilpi was married only married one and a half year, requested the Executive Magistrate to reach the hospital. He then went to the house number 9964, Multani Danda, Pahar Ganj, Delhi, where Shilpi had sustained burn injuries and after inspection of the spot and getting it photographed, came back to the hospital. The Special Executive Magi...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Kejriwal Vs. Special Director, Enforcement Directorate
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: January 20, 2014 Decision on: February 3, 2014 CRL.A. No.77 of 2008 SURESH KEJRIWAL Through: ..... Appellant Mr. R.K. Handoo, Advocate. versus SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE ..... Defendant Through: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT0302.2014 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13th November 2007 passed by the Foreign Exchange Appellate Tribunal (AT) dismissing the Appellants Appeal No.784 of 2004 thereby confirming the adjudication order of 29th April 2004 passed by the Assistant Director (AD), Enforcement Directorate (ED) holding the Appellant guilty of violation of Section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) and imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000 under Section 50 thereof.2. A show cause notice dated 25th June 1996 was issued to the Appellant stating that he had received a payment of Rs.5 lakhs by a pay order dated 27th October 1994 from a Non-Resident Ext...
Tag this Judgment!