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.
Obi Basil Chuks Vs. Customs
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:26. 03.2014 + CRL.A. 999/2010 AKABUOGU GODWINN OJIMBA ..... Appellant Through: Mr Dharmender Bhau, Adv versus CUSTOM + ..... Respondent Through: Mr Satish Aggarwala, Adv CRL.A. 1355/2010 OBI BASIL CHUKS ..... Appellant Through: Mr Yogesh Kr. Saxena, Mr Yogesh Mehta and Mr Tushar Oberio, Advs. versus CUSTOMS + ..... Respondent Through: Mr Satish Aggarwala, Adv CRL.A. 1238/2010 EDWARD CHUKWUDILE ..... Appellant Through: Mr Yogesh Kr. Saxena, Mr Yogesh Mehta and Mr Tushar Oberio, Advs. versus CUSTOMS ..... Respondent Through: Mr Satish Aggarwala, Adv CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN JUDGEMENT V.K. JAIN, J.(ORAL) The case of the complainant/respondent in nutshell is as follows:The appellants before this Court arrived from Kabul by flight No.KB-44 at about 4.50 PM on 13.09.2005. When they were in the transit area to catch flight No.ET0629at about 6.30 PM on that date, the Complainant Surinder Pal Singh, Inspector (Customs) inter...
Akabuogu Godwinn Ojimba Vs. Custom
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:26. 03.2014 + CRL.A. 999/2010 AKABUOGU GODWINN OJIMBA ..... Appellant Through: Mr Dharmender Bhau, Adv versus CUSTOM + ..... Respondent Through: Mr Satish Aggarwala, Adv CRL.A. 1355/2010 OBI BASIL CHUKS ..... Appellant Through: Mr Yogesh Kr. Saxena, Mr Yogesh Mehta and Mr Tushar Oberio, Advs. versus CUSTOMS + ..... Respondent Through: Mr Satish Aggarwala, Adv CRL.A. 1238/2010 EDWARD CHUKWUDILE ..... Appellant Through: Mr Yogesh Kr. Saxena, Mr Yogesh Mehta and Mr Tushar Oberio, Advs. versus CUSTOMS ..... Respondent Through: Mr Satish Aggarwala, Adv CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN JUDGEMENT V.K. JAIN, J.(ORAL) The case of the complainant/respondent in nutshell is as follows:The appellants before this Court arrived from Kabul by flight No.KB-44 at about 4.50 PM on 13.09.2005. When they were in the transit area to catch flight No.ET0629at about 6.30 PM on that date, the Complainant Surinder Pal Singh, Inspector (Customs) inter...
Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Issak Khan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:26. h March, 2014 % + MAC.APP. 1229/2012 CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Ms.Suman Bagga and Mr.Pankaj Gupta, Advocates. Versus ISSAK KHAN & ORS. Represented by: ....Respondents None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.MAC.APP. 1229/2012 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the impugned award dated 11.09.2012 on the sole ground that while awarding the compensation for loss of dependency, the learned Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 18, whereas multiplier as per the age of the mother of the deceased should have been applied as he was a bachelor.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 as21. The maximum value of the multiplier is fixed at 18, which is fairly repr...
Ravinder Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:26. 03.2014 + Crl. Appeal 1365/2010 RAVINDER Through: .Appellant Ms. Aishwarya Rao, Adv. Versus STATE Through: .Respondent Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP for State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(Oral) On 05.05.2007 at about 10.10 pm, Police Station Kalyan Puri was informed that a person had been stabbed by 4-5 persons near Chand Cinema and had been robbed of his cash and mobile phone. The information was recorded vide DD No.29B and a copy of the said DD was given to Head Constable Rakesh Kumar for investigation. When he reached the spot, he came to know that the injured had been taken by PCR van to LBSH hospital. When he reached the hospital, the injured Pramod was found admitted there. The injured told the aforesaid police officer that on that date, at about 10 am, he was waiting for the bus at Chand Cinema bus stand, when 3-4 boys aged about 20-25 years, all of a sudden surrendered him. One of them gav...
Karan Madaan and Others Vs. Nageshwar Pandey
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on:12. 11.2013 Judgment delivered on:26. 03.2014 CS(OS) 1633/2012 and CC182013 and I.A. Nos. 10623/2012 & 16134/2012 KARAN MADAAN AND OTHERS ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Anu Bagai & Mr. Bhuvan Mishra, Advocates. versus NAGESHWAR PANDEY Through: ..... Defendant Mr. Sunil K. Mittal, Mr. Kshitij Mittal & Mr. Anshul Mittal, Advocates along with defendant in person. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI JUDGMENT VIPIN SANGHI, J.I.A. Nos. 1111/2013 (under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of counter-claim filed by the defendant) and 1112/2013 (under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for passing a decree on admission in the suit) 1. The present suit has been filed by three plaintiffs. Plaintiffs No.1 & 2 are businessmen and plaintiff No.3 is the mother of plaintiff No.2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant was the sole and exclusive owner of built-up property bearing No.EC-5,...
Prominent Advertising Services Vs. Koutons Retail India Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:26. 03.2014 CCP (CO.) 10/2013 IN CO.PET.167/2011 PROMINENT ADVERTISING SERVICES .....Petitioner versus KOUTONS RETAIL INDIA LIMITED .....Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Samrat Nigam, Ms Ankita Mahajan & Ms Aishwarya Chandar. For the Respondent : Mr Hemant Sharma & Mr Ishan Sanghi. Mr Karan Khanna for Indian Overseas Bank. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for punishing the respondents for committing Contempt of Court by violating the order dated 07.03.2012 passed by this Court in Company Petition No.167 of 2011.2. The petitioner had filed the Company Petition No.167 of 2011 seeking winding up of the respondent company as the respondent company h...
Maruti Sale Trading Co. Vs. Gurdial Chand Khosla Decd. Thru. Lrs.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.148/2012 % 26th March, 2014 MARUTI SALE TRADING CO. ......Appellant Through: Mr. S.C.Kalra and and Mr. V.K.Mehra, Advocates. VERSUS GURDIAL CHAND KHOSLA DECD. THRU. LRS. ...... Respondent Through: Mr. C.P.Saxena, Advocate 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 against the impugned judgment of the court below dated 9.11.2011 which has dismissed the applications filed by the appellant-plaintiff under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. By the applications, the appellant-plaintiff sought restoration of the suit for recovery of Rs.17,50,000/- filed under Order 37 CPC, and which was dismissed in default on 30.3.2009.2. Appellant-plaintiff filed the subject suit for recovery of money on the ground that he had given a friendly loan to late Sh. Gurdial Chand Khosla, and who is now represented before the court below by hi...
Sangeeta Bhambani Vs. Jatinder Sardana and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:26. h March, 2014. % + CS(OS) No.350/2012 SANGEETA BHAMBANI Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. Uttam Datt, Mr. Nawab Singh Jaglan & Mr. Shubham Aggarwal, Advs. Versus JATINDER SARDANA & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Praveen Chauhan, Mr. Vijay Kumar & Mr. Kailash Chand, Advs. for D-1. Mr. P. Choudhary & Mr. P.C. Dhingra, Advs. for Applicant in IA No.538/2014. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J1 The plaintiff has instituted this suit for partition of property constructed on plot No.94, Block-51, Panchsheel Co-operative Housing Society, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi, pleading:(i) that the mother of the plaintiff and the defendant no.5 Shri Sandeep Bhambani was the daughter of late Shri Chiranjiv Lal Sardana and Smt. Leelawati Sardana; (ii) Shri Shri Chiranjiv Lal Sardana was the only son of Shri Uttam Sardana who was a resident of Pakistan; Shri Uttam Sardana was a doctor by profession and owned vast anc...
Nighat Khan Vs. Nafisa Begum
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
Salma Noor, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.12.2011 in case No.126/2010 of the CDRF-II, Udyog Sadan, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi vide which appellant/OP is directed to refund Rs.5,000/- along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental and physical harassment including litigation charges. 2. Being aggrieved appellant filed this appeal before this Commission. This appeal is accompanied with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. According to the appellant himself there is a delay of 381 days. 3. We have heard Sh. Nighat Khan, Appellant present in person and Ms. Nafisa Begum, respondent in person and perused the material on record. 4. It is admitted by the applicant in its applications that there is a delay of 381 days in filing the present appeal. Grounds for condoning the delay given by the applicant/appellant are that she was not aware of the order of the District Forum as it was an ex-parte order, but order of the District ...
British Airways, Haryana Vs. Kanwal Mohan Singh Sehgal, New Delhi
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
N.P. Kaushik, Member (Judicial) 1. In a complaint case bearing No.1141/2012 British Airways vs.Kanwal Mohan Singh Sehgal filed before District Forum-VI, M Block, Vikas Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi OP was ordered to be proceeded ex-parte against him by the District Forum on 13.9.2013 on account of non appearance of the OP. The case is still pending and is fixed for arguments for 9.5.2014. 2. That is what brings the OP/appellant in appeal before this Commission for setting aside ex-parte order against him. 3. We have heard Ms. Ritu Singh Mann, Counsel for the Appellant in this appeal at the admission stage as there is no need to hear the respondent. 4. The version of the appellant/OP is that notice of the complainant was never received by the OP because both the addresses given by the Complainant were wrong hence OP could not receive the notice sent by the District Forum and the Forum wrongly proceeded ex-parte against the OP/Appellant. 5. It is manifest that notice was never served on t...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »