Delhi Court March 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.
M/S. Brij Lal and Sons Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.12/2013 26th March, 2014 % M/S. BRIJ LAL & SONS Through: ....Appellant Mr. J.A. Chaudhary, Advocate. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Shalabh Gupta, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This is a very peculiar appeal, peculiar because of the history of this case. History of this case pertains to passing of three Awards till date by the arbitrator, the details of which will be given hereafter. At the outset it may be noted that this first appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order of the court below dated 17.10.2012 by which the court below while allowing the objections under Section 34 of the Act and remanding the matter to the arbitrator for a fresh decision directed that the petitioner/appellant refund an amount of Rs.4,19,639/- which was recei...
Geojit Financial Services Vs. Shashi Srivastava and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.222/2013& CM No.7733/13 (stay) % GEOJIT FINANCIAL SERVICES Through:26. h March, 2014 ......Appellant Mr. Aman Singhal, Adv. VERSUS SHASHI SRIVASTAVA & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, 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 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 impugning the order of the court below dated 26.3.2013, by which the objections filed by the appellant-objector challenging the Award of the arbitrator dated 21.1.2010 have been dismissed. By the Award dated 21.1.2010, the arbitrator Justice (Retired) M.A.Khan (appointed by the National Stock Exchange), awarded an amount of Rs.2,48,358/- in favour of the respondent no.1 herein, claimant in the arbitration proceedings. The amount was awarded on account of the appellant/objector illegally selling various shares in the De-Mat account wh...
New India Assurance Co Ltd. Vs. Allahdiya and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:26. h March, 2014 % + MAC.APP. 256/2012 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.L.K.Tyagi, Advocate. Versus ALLAHDIYA & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. S.S. Sisodia, Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated 07.01.2012, whereby the learned Tribunal granted compensation for an amount of Rs.8,30,900/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.2. Mr.L.K.Tyagi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company submits that on the date of the accident, the respondent No.1/injured was 28 years of age. He was not in a permanent job, therefore, keeping in mind the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the learned Tribunal has assessed his monthly salary as Rs.3,633/applicable to an unskilled person. But th...
Suresh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment :26. 03.2014. CRL.A. 203/2006 SURESH Through ..... Appellant Appellant with his counsel Mr.Usman Chaudhary, Adv. versus STATE Through ..... Respondent Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) 1 This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 24.01.2006 and 25.01.2006 respectively wherein the appellant Suresh had been convicted for the offence under Section 307/34 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 3 months. 2 Nominal roll of the appellant reflects that as on 30.06.2006, he has suffered incarceration of about 7 months and 23 days besides remission earned of 1 month and 20 days meaning thereby that he has suffered incarceration for about 9 months and 15 days; he had been granted bail on 07.08.2006. Another 1- month accrued to...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Badami Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.37/2014 26th March, 2014 % NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ....Appellant Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate. VERSUS SMT. BADAMI 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) C.M. No.1869/2014 (exemption)\ 1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. C. M. No.1868/2014 (condonation of delay in filing) 2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 130 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. + FAO No.37/2014 and C.M. No.1867/2014 (stay) 3. This first appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 impugning the judgment of the Commissioner dated 14.6.2013 which has allowed the claim petition filed by the claimant; respondent no.1 herein; and who is the mother of the deceased employee Sh. Umesh Kumar. Sh. Umesh Kumar died on 24.7.2005 in an accident while...
Devinder Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: March 10, 2014 Decision on: March 26, 2014 CRL.A. No.359 of 2009 and Crl.M.A.No.8682 of 2013 DEVINDER SINGH ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan with Mr. Sarin Naved, Ms. Ria Singh Sawhney and Mr. Snehashish Mukherjee, Advocates. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Narender Mann, Special Public Prosecutor with Mr. Manoj Pant and Ms. Utkarsha Kohli, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT2603.2014 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24 th April 2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, (CBI) in CC No.221 of 2007 holding the Appellant guilty of the offence under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and the order on sentence dated 28th April 2009 sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for one year with fine of Rs.5,000 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for 5 months for the offence...
Arun Kumar Arora Vs. Premshanti Kunj Flat Owners Association
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + TR.P(C) No.10/2014 26th March, 2014 % ARUN KUMAR ARORA Through: ......Petitioner Petitioner in person. VERSUS PREMSHANTI KUNJ FLAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION ...... Respondent Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM22822014(exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. TR.P.(C.) 10/2014 & CM Nos. 2205/2014 (stay) 1. Though this case was adjourned on 4.2.2014 because the appellant wanted an Advocate from the Legal Aid Committee, but today, petitioner states that he would like to himself argue his case. Accordingly, let the petitioner argue his case.2. This is a petition under Section 24 CPC for transferring the suit No.360/2013 pending in the court of Sh. Vikrant Vaid, Civil Judge-20, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi to any other court.3. A reference to the grounds urged in the petition shows that petitioner is aggrieved either on account of grant of...
R.V. Ahila Vs. M/S Vxl Realtors Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:26. 03.2014 CO.PET. 64/2013 & CA Nos.198-199/2013 R.V. AHILA ..... Petitioner versus M/S VXL REALTORS PVT. LTD. .... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner For the Respondent : Mr Anand K. Gausain. : Mr Vishwa Bhushan Arya. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J (ORAL) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sections 433(e) and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, inter alia, praying for winding up of the respondent company on the ground that the respondent company has failed and neglected to pay a sum of `1,72,000/- alongwith interest.2. Briefly stated, the facts are as under:- 2.1. The respondent company is engaged in business of the real estate development. The petitioner had applied to the respondent company on 15.02.2007 for booking of a residential unit in its project Eastern Homes proposed to be developed by the respondent at Dasna, Ghaziabad (U.P.)...
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs. D.K.Sardana
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on March 26, 2014 + W.P.(C) 920/2013 BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.A.K.Roy, Advocate versus D.K.SARDANA Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Rajat Sharma, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated December 01, 2012 passed by the Labour Court in I.D No.204/2011, whereby the Labour Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for consideration on the maintainability of the claim/reference before the Labour Court.2. The primary reason given by the Labour Court for rejecting the application is that based on the objections raised by the petitioner, issues have been framed and the same are mixed questions of law and fact which have to be decided after due adjudication by allowing the parties to lead oral and documentary evidence.3. The brief facts are that the respondent joine...
Bharti Axa General Insruance Company Ltd. Vs. Hakiman and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:26. h March, 2014 + MAC.APP. 294/2013 BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSRUANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Ms. Suman Bagga, Adv. versus HAKIMAN & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv. for R1 and R2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 23.01.2013, whereby ld. Tribunal while awarding the compensation has applied multiplier of 18 as per the age of the deceased while relying upon the dictum of Amrit Bhanushali v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2012 (6) SCALE1 2. The issue of multiplier has been dealt with by this Court in the case of Mohd. Hasnain & Ors. Vs. Jagram Meena & Ors. bearing MAC. APP. No.152/2014, decided on 24.03.2014, wherein held as under:21. The maximum value of the multiplier is fixed at 18, which is fairly representing the purchasing capacity of a victim in a stable economy. In t...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »