Delhi Court February 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 9 of about 540 results (0.035 seconds)indamer Company Pvt Ltd Vs. Krishan Lal Chopra
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on February 25, 2014 + W.P.(C) 7397/2013 INDAMER COMPANY PVT LTD Through ..... Petitioner Ms.Tanu Priya Gupta, Advocate versus KRISHAN LAL CHOPRA ..... Respondent Through Respondent in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.(Oral) 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated June 26, 2012 of the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Act in short) and orders dated April 03, 2013 and August 30, 2013 of the Appellate Authority, by which the Controlling Authority has granted an amount of `5,99,279/- to the respondent together with simple interest @ 10% p.a and the appeal and review of the appellate order were dismissed.2. The brief facts are that the respondent was appointed as a Retainer initially vide order dated July 31, 1996 which arrangement continued till April, 2011. In the month of May, 2012, the respondent submitted an application to the Controlling Authority making a...
Tag this Judgment!Jagjeet Kaur Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % FAO No.155/2013 25th February, 2014 JAGJEET KAUR Through: ......Appellant Mr. Vineet Sharma, Adv. VERSUS STATE Through: ...... Respondent Ms. Megha Bharara, Adv. for Ms. Zubeda Begum, Adv. 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 8(5)(e) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 against the judgment of the court below dated 19.12.2012 which has dismissed the petition which sought permission to sell the two fifth of the half undivided share of the minor sons of the appellant/petitioner in the back portion of the first floor of property bearing no.10/61, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi.2. The court below has dismissed the petition by observing that with respect to an undivided share in an immovable property, no permission is required. This is so stated in paras 8 to 10 of the impugned judgment and which read as under:- 3.8. The couns...
Tag this Judgment!Logix Infosoft Private Ltd. Vs. Cb Richard Ellis South Asia Private Li ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.81/2012 & CM No.3042/2012 25th February, 2014 % LOGIX INFOSOFT PRIVATE LTD. ......Appellant Through: Mr. Navneet Panwar, Adv. VERSUS CB RICHARD ELLIS SOUTH ASIA PRIVATE LIMITED ...... Respondent Through: Mr. Mohit Chadha, Adv. 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 Order 43 Rule 1 (d) CPC impugning the order dated 5.11.2011 by which the court below dismissed the application filed by the appellant-defendant under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The application under Order 9(13) CPC was filed for setting aside the decree dated 31.7.2010 for Rs.3,89,668/- against the applicant, and which decree was passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff who had provided real estate consultancy services to the applicant/defendant in terms of the contract dated 8.4.2008.2. Before the court below, the only ground urged in the application under Order 9 Rule 13 ...
Tag this Judgment!Satya Kumar Vs. Smt. Sumitra Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.178/2013 25th February, 2014 % SATYA KUMAR Through: ..... Appellant Mr. M.S. Yadav, Advocate. Versus SMT. SUMITRA DEVI AND ORS. Through: ..... Respondents 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 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) impugning the order of the Commissioner dated 29.1.2013 passed under Section 4A of the Act with respect to imposition of penalty of 50% of the compensation amount upon the appellant/employer.2. The provision of Section 4A of the Act is invoked after the main compensation proceedings are decided, proceedings under Section 4A are so as to take a decision as to whether claimants are entitled to interest and penalty for delay in payment of compensation and which compensation has to be paid within 30 days of the accident for penalty and interest not to be payab...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:- 25th February, 2014 + CRIMINAL APPEAL5621999 NAND LAL Through ..... Appellant Mr. Akshay Sapra, Advocate. versus STATE Through ..... Respondent Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J.Appellant Nand Lal by the impugned judgment dated 19 th April, 1999 has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) for murder of Rubi Kumar in the intervening night between 15th and 16th December, 1992 at A-260, Mukandpur Colony, Delhi. The conviction arises out of FIR No.486/1992, police station Samaipur Badli, which became subject matter of Session Case No.135/1994. The appellant was also charged under Section 376 IPC, but has been acquitted. State has not preferred any appeal against the said acquittal. By order of sentence dated 29th April, 1999, the appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-. In...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Bhool Vs. State Govt. of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: February 25, 2014 + CRL.REV.P. 348/2012 RAM BHOOL ..... Petitioner Through Mr.L.D.Mual with Mr.P.S.Ranga & Mr.Yoginder, Advocates versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through Mr.Pramod Saxena, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL VEENA BIRBAL, J.1. The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 9th February, 2012 passed by Ld.Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi in CA No.08/2011 whereby the judgment dated 25.8.2011 and order of sentence dated 27.8.2011 passed by the ld.ACMM in case FIR no.245/2000, P.S. Shahdara u/s 377/342 IPC, has been upheld.2. The ld.ACMM vide judgment dated 25.8.2011 has convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable u/s 377/342 IPC and vide order dated 27.8.2011 sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for offence u/s 342 IPC and in default to undergo SI for three months. Ld.ACMM further sentenced the appellant to undergo...
Tag this Judgment!Dewan Automobiles and anr. Vs. M/S. Birla Yamaha Ltd.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.114/2012 25th February, 2014 % DEWAN AUTOMOBILES AND ANR. ......Appellants Through: Mr. Suresh Sharma, Advocate. VERSUS M/S. BIRLA YAMAHA LTD. Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Amarjit Singh, Advocate. 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 under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed against the judgment of the first appellate court dated 29.2.2012 by which the appellate court set aside the judgment of the trial court dated 8.3.2010. Trial court had dismissed the suit for recovery of Rs.1,07,373.50/- and the appellate court allowing the appeal has passed a money decree of the suit amount in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.2. The relevant observations of the first appellate court are contained in para 12 of the impugned judgment and which reads as under:12. After hearing the arguments and going through the record, I f...
Tag this Judgment!Poonam Vs. V.P.Sharma
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C.1105/2009 % Order reserved on:06. h February, 2014. Order pronounced on :25. h February, 2014. POONAM ..... Petitioner Through: None. versus V.P.SHARMA ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA JUDGMENT1 This matter although listed on several dates, but none for the parties has attended the court. The Supreme Court in a case reported in (2013) 3 SCC721entitled K.S.Panduranga vs. State of Karnataka has clearly held that the courts are not bound to dismiss in default the case on account of non appearance of the parties. It is also not obligatory on the part of the court in all circumstances to engage amicus curiae. The court is not bound to adjourn the matter if both the appellant or his counsel/lawyer are absent and the court is fully empowered to decide the matter on merit. In premise of that this court had fixed the matter for final disposal when none of the parties has attended the court despite the adj...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Vivek Nagrath, Income Tax Officer 2(i), Lucknow Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) Following relief has been sought in this O.A.:- (a). To Summon the records. (b). To Direct the Respondents to consider the representation of the applicant dated 15.1.2010 and to restore his seniority by correctly applying the principle enunciated in CBDTs letter F. No.A-23012/7/2007-AD.VI dated 4.11.2009 thereby treating the Applicants deemed date of joining as 23.07.1992 viz the actual date of joining of his immediate junior in the seniority list of ITI for U.P. East region. (c).On granting relief to the Applicant in terms of prayer (b) above, to direct the Respondents to amend/rectify the Final All India seniority list of Income Tax Officers circulated vide letter F.No./A-23012/7/2007-Ad.VI dated 14.1.2010 and to assign the Applicant seniority position at Sr. No. 1491 instead of Sr. No. 1959 with all consequential relief. (d).Pass any other and further order which this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. F...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Niwas Rana and ors Vs. Anil Kumar and ors
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: February 25th, 2014 + FAO3352011 RAM NIWAS RANA & ORS Through : ..... Appellants Mr. Sudhanshu Tomar and Mr. Bharat Sehrawat, Advs. versus ANIL KUMAR & ORS Through : ..... Respondents Mr. Satish Sahai and Mr. Kamal Garg, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL VEENA BIRBAL, J.* 1. This is an appeal under Section 299 of The Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against impugned judgment dated 18.04.2011 passed by the court of learned Addl. District Judge (Central) Delhi wherein the petition filed by the respondent No.1 seeking probate of Will Ex.PW1/1 has been allowed.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are as under:The respondent No.1 herein i.e. Anil Kumar was the petitioner before the learned District Judge, Delhi. He had filed a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act for the grant of probate of Will dated 05.04.1995 alleged to have been executed by S...
Tag this Judgment!