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.
State Vs. Deepak Bansal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:- 25.03.2014. + CRL.A. 197/2006 STATE Through ..... Appellant Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP versus DEEPAK BANSAL ..... Respondent Through Mr. Puneet Mitta, Mr. M.C. Sanghi, Mr. Ankit Goel, Mr. Nitin Sharma and Mr. Ankur Aggarwal, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) 1 This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 25.10.2004 wherein the respondent Deepak Bansal has been acquitted of the offence under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the PFA Act). 2 Record shows that on 23.10.1997, a sample of Chenna was purchased by the Food Inspector (F-1) from the shop of the respondent which was in the name Madhuban Sweets, 3 MJ Sweet Centre, Shop No.10 Madhuban Road, Shakarpur. The cost of the sample was offered to the respondent but the respondent refused to take the money stating that the Chenna was not for sale; it was being used for preparati...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. the Presiding Officer, Industrial Trib ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on March 25, 2014 + W.P.(C) 6201/1998 DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.U.N.Tiwary, Advocate versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No.1 AND ANR. ..... Respondents Represented by: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.(Oral) 1. The challenge in this writ petition by the Delhi Transport Corporation is to the award dated October 17, 1996 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No.189/94 whereby the Industrial Tribunal has held the termination of the services of the respondent No.2 as illegal in violation of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act, in short) and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.2. It may be stated here that the petitioner was served before the Industrial Tribunal and the petitioner also had put in appearance. It appears that the petitioner did not file a written statement to the claim petit...
Manoj Gulshan Vs. Jai Dev Gulshan and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.187/2013 25th March, 2014 % MANOJ GULSHAN Through: ......Appellant Appellant in person. VERSUS JAI DEV GULSHAN & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM No.6368/2013 (delay in refiling) For the reasons stated in the application, delay in re-filing is condoned. CM stands disposed of. FAO1872013 1. The challenge by this appeal is to the impugned order dated 6.12.2012 which has dismissed the application filed by the appellantplaintiff for recalling of the orders dated 7.10.2011 and 14.10.2011.2. The suit filed by the appellant is a suit for specific performance, and which was pending at the stage of final arguments on 15.3.2011, when, an application was filed by the appellant-plaintiff to record further examination for exhibiting the documents by filing originals of such documents which were already on record. This application was allowe...
Nagandra Singh Vs. Director General Itbp and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: March 25, 2014 + W.P.(C) 94/1997 NAGANDRA SINGH Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Shishpal Laler, Advocate versus DIRECTOR GENERAL ITBP & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate for R-1 and R-2 Mr.Suresh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for R-3, R-4, R-5, R-6, R-7 & R-9 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties it is apparent that in the pleadings the real issue has escaped the attention of either parties and thus we would be deciding the writ petition with reference to the actual record; because our job is to do justice.2. That petitioner joined the ITBP in the year 1980 as a direct recruit, being appointed to the post of Asstt.Company Commander, vide order dated June 12, 1980. Seniority assigned to the petitioner against the post of Asst.Company Commander was at serial No.7.3. Vide order da...
Nishant. S. Diwan Vs. High Court of Delhi Through Registrar General an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:21. 03.2014 Pronounced on:25. 03.2014 + W.P.(C) 983/2014, C.M. NOS.1973/2014 & 1974/2014 NISHANT. S. DIWAN ..Petitioner Through: Sh. Jinendra Jain, Sh. Ajay Jain, Sh. B.N. Gaur, Sh. R.P. Kaushal and Sh. Arun Jain, Advocates. Versus HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL AND ANR. ..Respondents Through: Sh. Rajiv Bansal and Sh. Anchit Sharma, Advocates, for Resp. No.1. Ms. Sonal. K. Singh and Sh. Anurag Gohil, Advocates, for Resp. No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, a direction is sought to the Delhi High Court Establishment, through its Registrar General (hereafter called the High Court Establishment) to reserve 3% of the vacancies for the disabled persons, in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) Examination-2013 and consequently reserve 3% of the posts of the total cadre strength of t...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Sh. Ved Prakash and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on March 25, 2014 + W.P.(C) 4486/2001 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Represented by: ..... Petitioner Ms. Amita Gupta, Advocate with Mr.Ramakant Tripathi, Advocate versus SH. VED PRAKASH AND ANR. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Pramod Gupta, Advocate with Mr.Umakant Kataria, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.(Oral) CM No.17232/2013 (for restoration) This is an application filed by the petitioner-Municipal Corporation of Delhi seeking restoration of the writ petition, which was dismissed in default on October 07, 2013. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed. The writ petition is restored to its original number. W.P.(C) 4486/2001 1. The challenge by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in this petition is to the award of the Industrial Tribunal dated May 11, 2000 passed in I.D. No.758/1990 whereby the Industrial Tribunal has held that the respondent is entitled to be reg...
Teerthanker Mahaveer University Vs. Keshav Desiraju
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
$~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 969/2013 TEERTHANKER MAHAVEER UNIVERSITY ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dhruv Kapur, Mr. Vijayender Kumar, Ms. Megha Bansiwal, Advocates versus KESHAV DESIRAJU ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sachin Dutta, Mr. Vikram Aditya and Mr. Rishabh Jaitley, Advocates for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(ORAL) CM No.5422/2014 This application has been moved by the petitioner for early hearing of the petition. Issue notice. Counsel for the respondent accepts notice and states that he has no objection to the same. For the reasons stated in this application, the same is allowed, and the matter is taken up today itself. The next date of 08.05.2014 stands cancelled. The application is disposed off. Cont.Cas(C) No.969/2013 An affidavit of Dr. V. P. Mishra has been filed in this Court in terms of the orders passed on 17.12.2013. There is, however no response to t...
Rajesh Gupta Vs. State Through Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: March 3, 2014 Decision on: March 25, 2014 CRL.A. 89 of 2009 RAJESH GUPTA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Arvind K. Nigam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Subhiksh Vasudev, Mr. Abhishek Singh, Mr. Atul T.N., Advocates. versus STATE THROUGH 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 JUDGMENT2503.2014 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24 th January 2009 passed by the Special Judge, Central District-02, Delhi in CC No.195/01 convicting the Appellant for the offences 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 27th January 2009 whereby for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, the Appellant was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment (RI) with a fine of Rs. 15,000 and in default of p...
Rikesh Kumar Gaur Vs. Devi Charan Sharma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.92/2014 25th March, 2014 % RIKESH KUMAR GAUR Through: ....Appellant Mr. P.K. Mittal, Advocate. VERSUS DEVI CHARAN SHARMA & 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.5486/2014 (condonation of delay) 1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 50 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. + RSA No.92/2014 and C.M. No.5485/2014 (stay) 2. This Second Appeal is filed impugning the judgment of the first appellate court dated 26.9.2013 by which the first appellate court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein against the judgment of the trial court dated 4.8.2012. Trial court had dismissed the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction of the appellant/plaintiff by its judgment dated 4.8.2012.3. Suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff claiming two reliefs. First was for value of the artic...
Shail Bala Gupta and anr. Vs. Mahender Prasad Yadav and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
$~R-39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:25. h March, 2014 % + MAC.APP. 42/2007 SHAIL BALA GUPTA & ANR. Represented by: ..... Appellants Ms. Arpita, Advocate. Versus MAHENDER PRASAD YADAV & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms. Sonia Sharma, Advocate for Respondent No.3/ Insurance Company. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.1. The present appeal is preferred against the award dated 28.09.2006, whereby the learned Tribunal granted compensation for an amount of Rs.18,01,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition, i.e., 12.01.2004 till realization of the amount.2. Vide the present appeal, the appellants/claimants are seeking enhancement of the compensation amount as noted above.3. Ms.Arpita, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the accident had taken place on 01.10.2003 and the deceased Brij Mohan Gupta was expired on 25.10.2003. On the date of the accident, he ...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »